THE    AMERICAN    REVOLUTION    IN 
OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS 


BY 


CHARLES  ALTSCHTJL 


/ITH  AN  INTRODUCTION*  BY 

JAMES  T.  SHOT  WELL 

PROFESSOR  C  a'  HISTORY  AT  COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY 


GIFT    OF 
JANE  Kc FATHER 


THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 
IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS 
CHARLES  ALTSCHUL 


The   American    Revolution 
in   Our  School  Text-Books 


AN    ATTEMPT    TO    TRACE    THE    INFLUENCE    OF    EARLY    SCHOOL    EDUCATION 

ON    THE 

FEELING   TOWARDS   ENGLAND 

IN    THE 

UNITED    STATES 


BY 

CHARLES    ALTSCHUL 


WITH    AN    INTRODUCTION    BY 

JAMES  T.  SHOTWELL 

PROFESSOR    OK    HISTORY    AT    COLUMBIA    UNIVERJITY 


NEW    YORK 
GEORGE    H.    DORAN    COMPANY 


COPYRIGHT,    1917, 
BY    GEORGE    H.    DORAN    COMPANY 


PRINTED    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES    OF    AMERICA 


INTRODUCTION 

THE  great  war  has  shown  the  importance  of  the  teach 
ing  of  history,  in  the  formation  of  national  ideals. 
From  it  may  come  either  a  clarification  of  our 
understanding  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  process 
of  which  the  present  forms  but  a  momentary  part,  or  else 
a  perpetuation  of  misunderstandings  which  prejudice  and 
uncritical  habits  of  mind  have  fastened  upon  us.  In  either 
case,  as  we  see  it  now,  the  historian,  with  all  the  varied  data 
of  the  past  to  draw  upon,  has  in  his  hands  more  than  we 
had  formerly  imagined  of  the  moulding  of  opinion  in  the 
present,  and  therefore  of  the  direction — in  general  lines — 
of  future  policies. 

Unfortunately  it  cannot  be  said  of  those  histories  which 
are  by  far  the  most  widely  read,  that  they  have  been  written 
out  of  a  knowledge  of  all  this  varied  data  of  the  past.  On 
the  contrary,  the  text-books  in  history  have  more  commonly 
been  the  product  of  a  very  limited  knowledge  of  the  actual 
facts  of  the  subjects  with  which  they  de«il.  This  limit  of 
vision  has  naturally  gone  with  a  distortion  in  perspective. 
They  have,  for  the  most  part,  persisted  in  perpetuating 
ancient,  uncriticized  traditions  which  have  accumulated 
since  the  events  themselves,  rather  than  attempting  bravely 
and  frankly  to  tell  the  story  of  what  happened  in  the  light 
of  the  time  in  which  it  happened.  The  text-books  which 
have  been  written  recently  show  a  marked  improvement  in 
historical  perspective,  but  unfortunately  their  influence  has 
come  too  late  to  affect  the  generation  which  to-day  is  called 
upon  to  face  the  most  tremendous  issues  of  which  history 
has  record,  and  which  is  therefore  bound  to  bring  to  that 
decision  an  imperfect  historical  judgment.  For  the  teach 
ing  of  history  depends  largely  upon  the  text-books  used  in 
the  schools ;  and  upon  that  teaching  rests,  to  a  large  degree, 
our  conception  as  to  the  character  of  nations  and  national 
policies. 

This  has  been  clearly  evident  in  the  teaching  of  history  in 


370108 


vi  INTRODUCTION 

Europe,  where  the  emotional  interest  in  the  story  of  the 
past  has  been  heightened  by  the  shifting  but  ever-present 
conflict  of  national  forces,  so  that  many  of  the  issues  at  stake 
are  too  vital  to  be  treated  as  discarded  elements  of  ancient 
things.  But  if  it  has  been  easy  for  American  students  to 
point  out  the  fallacies  in  European  history-books,  since  the 
theme  is  seen  more  objectively,  the  discovery  leads  us  less 
toward  complacency  as  to  our  own  achievements  than  toward 
a  sharpening  of  self-criticism.  It  turns  us  back  upon  our 
selves  for  a  re-examination  of  the  kind  of  outlook  we  have 
acquired  concerning  the  events  and  the  meaning  of  the  lead 
ing  features  of  American  history. 

Fortunately  already  before  this  war  the  older  issues  of 
our  past  had  ceased  to  dominate  in  the  present.  The  nation 
which  had  conquered  a  continent  learned,  after  the  great 
task  was  practically  completed,  that  this  conquest  was  its 
greatest  achievement.  It  had  also  willed  that  the  soil  it 
made  its  own  should  be  free,  and  that  the  ideals  of  democ 
racy  should  here  find  a  safe  and  secure  abode.  America, 
"home  of  the  free,"  earned  its  title  by  a  struggle  lasting 
century-long.  From  the  ever-moving  frontier  came  much  of 
the  spirit  of  its  freedom.  But  this  process  lacked  the  pic 
turesque,  heroic  quality  of  the  first  great  struggle  for  liberty, 
and  the  Revolution  furnished  the  epic  of  American 
history — until  the  scientific  historians  of  to-day  began  to 
show,  and  the  school-books  to  reflect,  the  importance  of  the 
small  events  of  generations  of  peaceful  lives,  making  real 
the  ideals  of  the  past. 

*  Before  the  war  came,  therefore,  a  re-valuation  of  our 
history  was  under  way.  But  the  war  has  thrust  criticism 
upon  us  in  other  ways.  The  present  study  is  a  good  ex 
ample  of  it.  It  is  the  work  of  a  business-man,  intensely 
interested  in  the  opinions  of  his  fellow-citizens.  It  makes 
no  claim  to  "higher  criticism".  It  does  not  deal  with  orig 
inal  sources  of  the  history  of  the  problem  with  which  it 
deals ;  it  is  simply  an  analysis  of  the  basis  of  that  opinion 
about  history  and  peoples  which  the  author  observed  in  those 
with  whom  he  came  in  contact,  and  who,  in  spite  of  admoni 
tions  from  high  quarters,  were  more  intent  upon  expressing 
those  opinions  than  upon  substantiating  them  by  a  study  of 
fact. 

It  will  be  seen  by  any  serious  student  of  the  period,  that* 


INTRODUCTION  vii 

Mr.  Altschul  has,  with  rare  moderation,  limited  his  survey 
not  only  to  the  text-books  he  analyzes,  but  also  to  a  small 
portion  of  the  subject  itself.  There  are  many  other  angles 
of  approach  and  many  other  possibilities  of  criticism.  But 
the  author  has  preferred  to  deal  thoroughly  with  the  patent 
facts  in  his  own  line  of  inquiry.  He  does  not  attempt  to 
evaluate  the  ''tendencies"  of  the  books  with  which  he  deals, 
nor  to  enter  into  the  question  of  general  interpretations. 
That,  he  feels,  is  a  matter  for  the  research  historian.  But 
the  method  employed  is  novel  and  the  results  of  interest, 
not  simply  for  the  citizen  who  has  only  such  text-book 
knowledge  of  the  history  of  his  country  as  is  given  in  the 
books  under  review,  but  for  the  teacher  who  even  to-day 
accepts  the  statements  in  them  as  authoritative/-and  final. 
When  the  spirit  of  criticism  is  awakened  in  the"  citizen  who 
has  been  trained  in  the  old  traditions,  it  is  bound  to  pene 
trate  the  schools  as  well. 

There  is  one  large  inference  Mr.  Altschul  has  justly 
drawn  from  the  data,  and  that  is  that  our  history  has  been 
studied  for  the  most  part  in  a  rather  superficial  manner. 
The  larger  inheritance  of  our  institutions  and  habits  of 
thought,  being  so  intimate  atpart  of  us,  has  been  taken  for 
granted  without  any  clear  appreciation  of  how  much  of  it 
is  a  product  of  history  that  reaches  back,  in  the  main,  beyond 
the  Revolution.  When  history  is  seen  to  be  more  than  a 
succession  of  dramatic  events,,  of  wars  and  crises,  an  embodi 
ment,  rather,  of  the  long  Hfe-story  of  social  and  political 
adjustment  to  ideals  through  changing  environment,  a  pro 
cess  affecting  every  generation  and  linking  the  common 
things  of  daily  life  to  the  great  purposes  of  national  develop 
ment,  then  the  story  of  our  achievement  will  be  seen  to  have 
a  different  content  and  a  more  practical  bearing  than  the 
epic  which  time  and  the  careless  memory  of  men  haye 
offered  as  i£s  substitute.  And  then,  corrected  by  a  wider 
apprehension  of  its  meaning,  the  old  story,  recast  to  meet  the 
demands  of  a  critical  audience,  will  lend  its  inspiration  to 
the  attainment  of  juster  ideals  than  provincial  and  mislead 
ing  conceptions  of  a  receding  past. 

JAMES  T.  SHOTWELL. 


PREFACE 

SINCE  the  outbreak  of  the  Great  War,  it  has  been  highly 
interesting  to  watch  the  drift  of  American  sympathy 
towards  the  different  belligerent  nations,  and  to  note 
the  direction  in  which  it  crystallized. 

The  line  between  pro-Teuton  and  pro-Ally  sentiment  was 
quickly  drawn,  but  the  grouping  of  those  who  sympathized 
with  the  different  Allied  nations  did  not  become  apparent 
so  soon.  Since  a  long  time,  however,  it  has  been  perfectly 
evident  that  there  is  a  very  strong  pro-French  sentiment  in 
this  country,  while  there  is  no  such  broad  and  popular  mani 
festation  in  favor  of  the  English. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  understand  why  the  sympathy  for  the* 
French  will  always  assert  itself  vigorously  in  the  United 
States.  We  all  cherish  a  grateful  remembrance  of  the  assist 
ance  given  us  by  France  during  our  Revolutionary  War; 
we  all  followed  her  political  difficulties  during  the  last  forty 
years  with  the  deepest  interest;  we  have  always  recognized 
and  admired  the  achievements  of  her  people  in  the  arts,  in 
literature,  in  science ;  and  their  generally  lighter,  more  grace 
ful  vein  charms  us  and  appeals  powerfully  to  our  imagina 
tion. 

In  view  of  the  deep  significance  of  the  present  European 
contest,  it  is,  however,  not  easy  to  account  for  the  apparent 
lack  of  a  similar  sympathy  for  England — a  country  which 
is,  in  its  way,  faced  with  as  dire  a  peril  as  France,  and  one 
which,  even  though  she  has  not  yet  suffered  as  much,  would 
probably  undergo  deeper  humiliation,  should  the  Allies  suc 
cumb. 

We  all  understand  that  the  historical  origin  of  our  nation 
is  one  of  the  causes  which  dampens  the  enthusiasm  for 
England ;  we  remember  the  political  agitation  which,  years 
ago,  aroused  slumbering  animosities  at  every  election,  and 
which,  even  in  these  days,  occasionally  fans  the  flames  of 
prejudice.  Besides,  we  recall  minor  causes  of  irritation 
which  have,  from  time  to  time,  sown  mutual  distrust  be- 

ix 


x  PREFACE 

tween  the  two  nations ;  and,  at  the  present  moment,  we  must 
make  allowance  for  the  pernicious  effect  of  recent  German 
propaganda. 

But,  in  spite  of  the  controversies  which  have  at  times 
raged  between  the  two  peoples,  we  speak  the  same  language 
as  the  English;  our  customs  have  been  fashioned  after 
theirs ;  our  legal  procedure  has  been  founded  upon  theirs ; 
their  ideas  of  government  and  their  conception  of  Liberty 
are  ours  as  well.  In  spite  of  the  wars  we  have  fought 
against  them,  we  have  never  thought  of  turning  to  any  other 
nation  as  a  model  for  what  is  most  essential  in  our  public 
and  private  life.  Many  nationalities  have  been  brought  to 
gether  in  this  melting_po t ;  but  the  influence  of  all  other 
nations  remains  negligible  compa/ed  to  that  of  England. 
She  is,  after  all,  the  Mother  Country,  from  whom  we  have 
acquired  what  really  counts  in  the  long  run:  language,  cus- 
\  toms,  political  liberty,  tradition  ! 

Why  then,  have  we  not  rallied  in  a  much  greater  measure 
to  the  moral  support  of  England  in  this  world  upheaval? 
Why  did  not  the  sympathy  of  the  largest  proportion  of  our 
people  go  out  to  the  English  rajther  than  to  any  other  nation  ? 

It  has  occurred  to  me  that  the  explanation  of  this  phe 
nomenon  lies  in  the  way  in  which  facts  of  history,  super 
ficially  studied  without  due  regard  to  surrounding  circum 
stances,  determine  our  views  in  later  life;  especially  if  lodged 
in  that  mysterious  store-house,  "the  sub-conscious",  during 
childhood,  when  the  spirit  in  which  instruction  is  given 
leaves  a  more  indelible  mark  than  do  the  facts  themselves. 
Impressions  gained  during  the  early  years  of  school-life  may 
possibly  have  had  a  far-reaching  influence  in  instilling  a 
prejudice  against  the  country  whose  control  we  repudiated 
in  the  Revolutionary  War.  Such  a  prejudice  once  en 
gendered  would  be  very  likely  to  distort  one's  vision  in  con 
nection  with  everything  that  relates  to  the  same  subject,  and 
yet  leave  one  totally  unaware  of  the  part  those  very  school- 
day  influences  play  in  forming  one's  present  opinions. 

In  following  this  line  of  thought,  I  have  tried  to  ascertain 
what  impressions  pupils  are  liltely  to  have  received  from 
the  study  of  the  American  Revolution  as  recorded  in  our 
text-books.  Have  the  children  been  given  an  adequate  or 
unbiased  picture  .of  the  conditions  which  led  to  the  great 
conflict  with  the  Mother  Country;  and  if  not,  what  general 


PREFACE  ±i 

impressions  are  they  apt  to  have  gained  from  their  earliest 
studies?  Would  an  impartial  presentation  of  the  historical 
facts  have  given  them  different  ideas,  and  would  it  have  pre 
vented  possibly  wrong  and  antagonistic  notions?  Have  the 
pupils,  for  instance,  been  shown  the  gulf  which,  at  that  time, 
separated  the  King  of  that  day  and  his  friends  from  the 
truer  representatives  of  the  best  thought  and  traditions  of 
England?  Have  their  minds  been  directed  as  forcefully  as 
might  have  been  to  the  shining  example  of  prominent  Eng 
lishmen,  like  Pitt,  Burke,  Barre,  Fox,  and  others,  who  lost 
no  opportunity  in  Parliament  to  fight  in  the  interest  of  the 
Americans,  and  who  never  hesitated  to  risk  the  displeasure 
of  the  King,  in  attempting  to  promote  the  cause  of  the  col 
onists?  In  fine,  has  the  history  of  the  greatest  event  in  th( 
life  of  our  nation  been  taught  in  the  spirit  of  fair  and  imj 
partial  inquiry  for  the  facts  of  the  case,  or  in  a  one-sid< 
manner  apt  to  implant  prejudice? 

The  object  of  this  informal  study  is  to  ascertain  if  satis- 
f actory  evidence  is  available  to  warrant  an  answer  to  these 
questions;  to  determine  whether  we  are  justified  in  thinking 
that  the  history  text-books  in  use  more  than  twenty  years 
ago  may  have  had  a  definite  prejudicial  influence  on  the 
minds  of  a  considerable  part  of  our  population;  and  if  so, 
to  what  extent  the  text-books  in  use  at  present  promise  a 
different  result. 

In  following  this  inquiry,  no  attempt  was  made  to  gather 
information  concerning  the  Revolutionary  Period  frojn 
sources  other  than  the  text-books  themselves. 

C.  A. 

New  York  City,  March,  1917. 


THE  AMERICAN   REVOLUTION 
IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS 


THE  AMERICAN   REVOLUTION  IN 
OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT- BOOKS 


THE  great  majority  of  people  in  this  country  have 
probably  gained  their  knowledge  of  the  American 
Revolution  in  the  first  grades  of  the  Public  Schools 
in  which  they  were  taught  History.    Owing  to  the 
general  custom  that  a  chapter  of  History,  once  studied  by 
the  pupil,  is  not  taken  up  again,  it  would  seem  that  the  text 
books  used  in  these  grades  should  be  a  fair  index  to  the 
knowledge  that  had  been  imparted.    No  doubt,  many  pupils 
make  a  more  complete  study  of  certain  phases  of  History 
at  some  later  time ;  but  this  inquiry  is  confined  to  the  great 
mass  of  children  that  follows  only  the  regular  course  of  our 
Public  Schools. 

If  one  could  ascertain  how  many  pupils  had  acquired  their 
knowledge  from  each  of  the  different  text-books,  current 
at  a  given  time,  one  could  determine  pretty  closely  what 
general  knowledge  the  pupils  of  that  day  are  apt  to  have 
gained.  It  is  manifestly  impossible  to  secure  an  accurate 
picture  of  that  kind,  principally  because  of  the  complexity 
of  the  task,  and  the  lack  of  instructive  records  in  many 
communities.  Nevertheless,  it  may  be  possible  to  form  a 
fairly  reliable  opinion  of  the  character  of  the  information 
which  has  been  disseminated  on  so  striking  a  subject  as  the 
one  with  which  we  are  concerned — the  American  Revolution. 
I  15 


16  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

The  text-books  which  contain,  relatively,  the  most  com 
plete  information  on  this  subject  represent  the  situation  to 
have  been  substantially  as  follows : 

Up  to  the  time  when  George  III.  ascended  the 
throne,  the  colonists  greatly  valued  the  connection 
with  the  mother  country;  the  various  distinct  and 
separate  colonies  were  at  least  as  much  attached  to 
her  as  to  one  another ;  and  many  colonists  remained 
loyal  throughout  the  Revolutionary  War; 

In  spite  of  their  grievances,  there  was  no  general 
disposition  to  separate  from  the  mother  country 
before  1775; 

The  greatest,  wisest,  and  fairest-minded  of  Eng 
land's  statesmen  were  against  the  King,  and  fought 
on  many  occasions  in  Parliament  in  the  interest  of 
the  Americans; 

Pitt,  Burke,  Fox,  and  others,  were,  in  spirit,  the 
allies  of  Franklin,  Adams,  and  Washington  ; 

The  responsibility  for  the  American  Revolution 
mainly  lies  at  the  door  of  George  III.  and  the 
"King's  Friends"; 

Parliament  was,  at  that  time,  not  representative 
of  the  great  mass  of  the  English  people;  out  of  a 
population  of  approximately  8,000,000  only  about 
200,000  Englishmen  had  the  right  to  vote;  and 
many  of  these  were  influenced  by  illegitimate,  dis 
reputable  means,  adopted  by  the  King  in  order  to 
gain  control  of  the  legislative  body; 

The  people  of  England,  as  a  whole,  were  not,  and 
under  the  circumstances  could  not  be,  responsible 
for  the  American  Revolution. 

How  far  from  these  conclusions  are  the  statements  from 
which  most  of  the  citizens  of  this  country  have  drawn  their 
knowledge  of  the  history  of  the  Revolution? 

In  an  endeavor  to  reach  the  sources  from  which  the  public 
gained  its  information,  I  have  asked  Boards  of  Education, 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS 


17 


Superintendents  of  Public  Schools,  Principals  of  High 
Schools,  and  personal  friends,  to  send  me  the  names  of  some 
of  the  most  popular  text-books  which  were  in  use  more  than 
twenty  years  ago,  in  the  three  lowest  grades  in  which  Amer 
ican  History  was  taught,  in  the  Public  Schools  of  their  sev 
eral  communities;  as  well  as  the  names  of  some  of  the  text 
books  in  use  at  present. 

Correspondents  in  the  following  cities  kindly  answered 
my  inquiries : 

Concord 

Manchester 

Newark 

Deming 

New  York  City 

Carson  City 

Charlotte 

Raleigh 

Grand  Forks 

Cincinnati 

Cleveland 

Columbus 

Oklahoma  City 

Portland    - 

Philadelphia 

Providence 

Charleston 

Columbia 

Aberdeen 

Memphis 

Nashville 

Austin 

Galveston. 

San  Antonio 

Salt  Lake  City 

Burlington 

Montpelier 

Richmond 

Charleston 

Seattle 

Walla  Walla 

Madison 

Milwaukee 

Cheyenne 


Alabama 

Montgomery 

Arizona 

Phoenix 

Prescotlv 

Tucson 

Arkansas 

Fort  Smith 

California 

Sacramento 

San  Diego 

San  Francisco 

Colorado 

Denver 

Connecticut 

Hartford 

Delaware 

Dover 

Dist.  of  Col. 

Washington 

Florida 

Tallahassee 

Georgia 

Atlanta 

Savannah 

Idaho 

Boise 

Illinois 

Chicago 

Indiana 
Iowa 

Indianapolis 
Des  Moines 

Davenport 

Kansas 

Kansas  City 

Topeka 

Kentucky 

Louisville 

Louisiana 

New  Orleans 

Maine 

Bangor 

Maryland 

Baltimore 

Massachusetts 

Boston 

Michigan 

Detroit 

Minnesota 

Minneapolis 

Mississippi 
Missouri 

Vicksburg 
St.  Louis 

Montana 

Helena 

Butte 

Nebraska 

Omaha 

New  Hampshire 

New  Jersey 
New  Mexico 
New  York 
Nevada* 
North  Carolina 

North  Dakota 
Ohio 


Oklahoma 
Oregon 
Pennsylvania 
Rhode  Island 
South  Carolina 

South  Dakota 
Tennessee 

Texas 


Utah 
Vermont 

Virginia 
West  Virginia 
Washington 

Wisconsin 
Wyoming 


I  have  received  answers  from  every  State  in  the  Union, 
(68  Cities),  and  have  examined  the  chapters  or  paragraphs 
devoted  to  the  Revolutionary  Period  in  the  following  93 
History  text-books  to  which  my  attention  has  been  directed 
in  this  manner. 


18  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

List  of  Text-Books  Examined 
which  were  in  use  more  than  twenty  years  ago: 

1.  Anderson's  Popular  School  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1886. 

2.  Anderson's  New  Grammar  School  History  of  the  U.  S. — Ed. 

1890. 

3.  Anderson's  Junior  Class  History  of  the  U.  S. — Ed.  1894. 

4.  Armstrong's  Primer  of  U.  S.  History. — Ed.  1885. 

5.  Barnes'  Primary  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1885. 

6.  Barnes'  Brief  History  of  the  U.  S.,  by  Steele.— Ed.  1885. 

7.  California  State  Series,  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1888. 

8.  Chambers'  (Hansell's)   School  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1887. 

9.  Chambers'  (Hansell's)  Higher  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1889. 

10.  Berry's  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1882. 

11.  Eggleston's  First  Book  in  American  History. — C.  R.  1889. 

12.  Eggleston's  History  of  the  U.  S.  and  Its  People. — Ed.  1888. 

13.  Ellis'  Eclectic  Primary  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1884. 

14.  Field's  Grammar  School  History  of  the  U.  S. — Ed.  1897. 

15.  Fisher's  Outlines  of  Universal  History. — Ed.  1897. 

16.  'Fiske's  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1894. 

17.  "Gilman's  Making  of  the  American  Nation. — Ed.  1887. 

18.  Goodrich's  (Parley's)  Pictorial  Hist,  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1881. 

19.  Goodrich's  (Seavey's)  History  of  the  U.  S. — Ed.  1880. 

20.  Higginson's  Young  Folks'  History  of  the  U.  S. — Ed.  1885. 

21.  Holmes'  New  School  History  of  the  U.  S. — Ed.  1895. 

22.  Johnston's  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1895. 

23.  Lossing's  School  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1885. 

24.  Magill's  History  of  Virginia. — Ed.  1904. 

25.  MacMaster's  School  History  of  the  U.  S.-«-C.  R.  1884. 

26.  Montgomery's  Beginner's  American   History. — Ed.   1894. 

27.  Montgomery's  Leading  Facts  of  American  History. — Ed.  1893. 

28.  Quackenbos'  Elementary  History  of  the  U.  S. — C.  R.  1884. 

29.  Quackenbos'  (Appleton's)  School  History  of  the  World. — C.  R. 

1889. 

30.  Quackenbos'  School  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1878. 

31.  Ridpath's  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1885. 

32.  Scudder's  Short  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1890. 

33.  Scudder's  New  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1897. 

34.  Sheldon's  American  History  (Mary  Sheldon  Barnes'  Studies  in 

Am.  Hist.)— Ed.  1892. 

35.  Swinton's  First  Lessons  in  Our  Country's  History. — Ed.  1872. 

36.  Swinton's  Condensed  U.  S.  School  History.— Ed.  1871. 
37  Swinton's  Outlines  of  the  World's  History.— Ed.  1874. 

38.  Swinton's  School  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1893. 

39.  Thalheimer's  Eclectic  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1881. 

40.  Thomas'  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1897. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  19 

List  of  Text-books  examined  which  are  in  use  at  present: 

41.  Adams  and  Trent's  History  of  the  U.  S. — Ed.  1913. 

42.  Barnes'  School  History  of  the  U.  S.,  by  Steele.— Ed.  1914. 

43.  Barnes'  American  History  for  Grammar  Grades. — Ed.  1913. 

44.  Barnes'  Short  American  History  by  Grades,  I.— Ed.  1913. 

45.  Barnes'  Short  American  History  by  Grades,  II.— Ed.  1913. 

46.  Bourne  and  Benton's  History  of  the  U.  S. — Ed.  1913.- 

47.  Burton's  Builders  of  Our  Nation. — Ed.  1910. 

48.  Chandler  and  Chitwood's  Makers  of  American  History.— C.  R. 

1904. 

,49.  Channing's  Student's  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1913. 

50.  Chambers'  (Hansell's)  A  School  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed  1913 

51.  Connor's  The  Story  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1916. 

,  52.  Dickson's  American  History  for  Grammar  Schools. — Ed.  1916. 

53.  Eggleston's  First  Book  in  American  History. — Ed.  1915. 

54.  Eggleston's  History  of  the  U.  S.  and  Its  People.— Ed.  1915. 

55.  Eggleston's  New  Century  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1916. 

56.  Elson's  History  of  the  U.  S.  of  America.— Ed.  1913. 

57.  Elson  and  MacMullan's  Story  of  Our  Country.— Ed.  1915. 

58.  Evan's  First  Lessons  in  Georgia  History.— Ed.  1913. 

59.  Evans'  Essential  Facts  of  American  History.— Ed.  1915. 

60.  Estill's  Beginner's  History  of  Our  Country.— Ed.  1915. 

61.  Fiske's  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1907. 

62.  Formans'  History  of  the  U.  S. — Ed.  1916. 

63.  Foster's  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1917. 

64.  Gordy's  Elementary  History  of  the  U.  S. — Ed.  1913. 

'  65.  Gordy's  Stories  of  Later  American  History. — Ed.  1915. 

66.  Gordy's  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1914.  - 
67^-  Gorton's  Elementary  History  of  the  U.  S.,  II. — Ed.  1914. 

68.  Hall,  Smither,  and  Ousley's  Student's  Hist,  of  Our  Country. — 

Ed.  1914. 

69.  Hamilton's  Our  Republic. — Ed.  1910. 

70.  Hart's  Essentials  in  American  History. — Ed.  1914. 

71.  Higginson's  Young  Folks'  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1902. 

72.  Hodgdon's  First  Course  in  American  History,  II.— Ed.  1908. 

73.  Lemmon's    (Cooper,   Estill,  and   Lemmon's)    History   of   Our 

Country. — Ed.  1908. 

74.  Mace's  Primary  History— Stories  of  Heroism.— Ed.  1916. 

75.  Mace's   Beginner's   History. — Ed.   1916. 

76.  Mace's  School  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1914. 

77.  MacMaster's  Primary  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1915. 

78.  MacMaster's  Brief  History  of  the  U.  S.— 1915.  — /<?«• 

79.  MacMaster's  School  History  of  the  U.  S.— Ed.  1916. 

80.  Montgomery's  Elementary  American  History.— Ed.  1915. 

81.  Montgomery's  Beginner's  American  History.— Ed.  1915. 

82.  Montgomery's  Leading  Facts  of  American  History.— Ed.  1916. 

83.  Morris'  History  of  the  U.  S.  of  America. — Ed.  1916. 

84.  Perry  and  Price's  American  History,  II. — Ed.  1914. 

85.  Sheldon's  American  History  (Mary  Sheldon  Barnes'  Studies  in 

Am.  Hist.) — Ed.  1907. 


20  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

86.  Swan's  History  and  Civics,  Fifth  Year,  II.— Ed.  1915. 

87.  Tappan's  Elementary  History  of  Our  Country. — Ed.  1916. 

88.  Thomas'  Elementary  History  of  the  U.  S  —  Ed.  1916. 

89.  Thompson's  History  of  the  U.  S. — Ed.  1915. 

90.  Thwaites  and  Kendall's  History  of  the  U.  S. — Ed.  1915. 

.pi.    Woodburn  and  Moran's  Elementary  American  Hist.  &  Govt. — 

Ed.  1914. 
$2.  Woodburn  and  Moran's  American  History  and  Government. — 

Ed.  1914. 
93.  White's  Beginner's  History  of  the  U.  S. — Ed.  1916. 

Some  of  these  text-books  may  not  have  been  responsible 
for  the  earliest  impressions  of  the  pupils  on  this  subject; 
others  which  did  have  such  an  influence  certainly  exist,  but 
did  not  come  to  my  notice.  The  plan,  however,  on  which 
this  study  has  been  developed,  was  to  accept  the  replies  to 
inquiries  sent  out,  as  a  fair  reflection  of  general  conditions, 
and  to  avoid  broadening  the  investigation. 

The  picture  which  is  thereby  revealed  of  the  teacryng  of 
American  History  throughout  the  country,  cannqt  but  be 
very  incomplete,  as  there  are  innumerable  communities  and 
numberless  text-books,  and  those  which  I  have  examined 
form  but  a  fraction  of  the  whole.  Besides,  it  is  impossible 
to  ascertain  how  many  pupils  studied  from  one  particular 
book,  and  how  many  made  use  of  another. 

In  spite  of  this,  the  picture  is  probably  fairly  representa 
tive.  An  earnest  effort  was  made  to  secure  the  most  popular 
text-books  from  the  principal  City  of  each  State,  and  in  some 
instances,  for  special  reasons,  from  some  other  cities  besides ; 
and  it  is  reasonably  safe  to  assume  that  the  smaller  commu 
nities  have  followed  the  lead  of  their  larger  neighbors  in 
matters  of  education. 


The  result  of  my  investigation  follows.  The  books  have 
been  arranged  in  five  groups.  In  a  few  instances,  it  has 
been  difficult  to  determine  to  which  group  a  book  properly 
belonged.  In  each  such  case,  the  book  has  been  given  the 
most  favorable  classification  possible. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  21 

Of  Of 

40  53               S 

text-books  text-books* 

in  use  in  use 

more  than  at 

twenty  years  present: 
ago: 

4  6        deal   fully  with  the  grievances  of   the 

colonists,  give  an  account  of  general 
political  conditions  in  England  prior  to 
the  American  Revolution,  and  give  credit 
to  prominent  Englishmen  for  the  serv 
ices  they  rendered  the,  Americans ; 

4  14,       deal    fully  with   the   grievances   of   the 

cojonists,  mak,e  some  reference  to  gen 
eral  political  conditions  in  England  prior 
to  the  American  Revolution,  and  men 
tion  some  prominent  Englishmen  who 
rendered  services  to  the  Americans ; 

II  13        deal  fully  with  tbe  grievances  of  the  col 

onists,  make  no  reference  to  general 
political  conditions  in  England  prior  to 
the  American  Revolution,  but  make,  at 
least,  favorable  mention  of  several  pro 
minent  Englishmen; 

7  5        deal    fully   with   the  grievances   of   the 

colonists,  make  no  reference  to  general 
political  conditions  in  England  prior  to 
the  American  Revolution,  but  mention, 
at  least,  Pitt;  • 

14  15        deal   fully  with   the  grievances   of   the 

colonists,  make  no  reference  to  general 
political  conditions  in  England  prior  to 
the  American  Revolution,  nor  to  any 
prominent  Englishmen  who  devoted 
themselves  to  the  cause  of  the  Amer 
icans.*  * 


*Practically  all  the  text-books  mentiom  Pitt  in  connection  with  the 
war  against  France  in  America,  and  in  connection  with  the  naming  of 
Pittsburgh.  This  inquiry  is  however  not  directed  to  the  period  in  which 
those  incidents  occurred. 


22  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

This  numerical  comparison  by  itself  may  be,  to  some 
extent,  misleading;  it  gives  the  picture  from  one  angle  only. 
It  is  essential  to  gain,  besides,  an  impression  of  the  relative 
distribution  of  the  different  text-books  throughout  the 
country.  The  number  of  pupils  who  are  apt  to  have  acquired 
knowledge  from  any  of  these  books,  can  be  more  accurately 
estimated  if  we  have  some  idea,  in  which  particular  com 
munities,  and  in  how  many  different  ones,  each  separate  text 
book  has  been  used. 

The  following  lists  may  throw  some  light  on  this  subject. 
In  order  to  enable  as  close  a  comparison  as  possible,  only  one 
City  in  a  State  is  recorded  in  the  lists  referring  to  each  text 
book,  even  though,  in  some  instances,  the  particular  book 
was  mentioned  in  replies  from  several*cities  in  the  same 
State. 


CITIES  FROM  WHICH  THE  USE  OF  EACH 

SEPARATE  TEXT-BOOK  WAS 

REPORTED 


BOOKS  IN  USE  MORE  THAN  TWENTY  VEARS 

AGO 


Group  One 

Text-books  which  deal  fully  with  the  grievances  of  the  colonists,  give 
an  account  of  general  political  conditions  in  England  prior  to  the 
American  Revolution,  and  give  credit  to  prominent  Englishmen  for 
the  services  they  rendered  the  Americans. 

Four  Books 
7*  16  33  40 

San  Francisco       New  York  Columbus  Charleston,  W.  Va. 

Washington          Concord  New  York 

New  York 
Philadelphia  * 


*  The  numbers  correspond  with  the  numbers  of  the  text-books  as  listed 
on  pages  18,  19,  and  20. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  23 

Group  Two 

Text-books  which  deal  fully  with  the  grievances  of  the  colonists, 
make  some  reference  to  general  political  conditions  in  England  prior 
to  the  American  Revolution,  and  mention  some  prominent  Englishmen 
who  rendered  services  to  the  Americans. 

Four  Books 

17  2O  22  23 

Columbus  Columbus  Columbus  Hartford 

Concord 
New  York 


Group  Three 

Text-books  which  deal  fully  with  the  grievances  of  the  colonists, 
make  no  reference  to  general  political  conditions  in  England  prior  to 
the  American  Revolution,  but  make,  at  least,  favorable  mention  of 
several  prominent  Englishmen. 

Eleven  Books 
9  10  14  15 

Charlotte  Richmond  Atlanta  Nashville 

Nashville 

New  Orleans 

Vicksburg 

18  19  21  27 

Charleston,  W.  Va.    Raleigh  Richmond  Burlington 

Charlotte  £hicag  o 

Concord 
Grand  Forks 
Indianapolis 
New  York 
Philadelphia 

34  36  38 

New  York  New  York  Davenport 

Salt  Lake  City  San  Francisco  New  York 

Savannah 


THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 


Group  Four 

Text-books  which  deal  fully  with  the  grievances  ot  the  colonists, 
make  no  reference  to  general  political  conditions  in  England  prior  to 
the  American  Revolution,  but  mention,  at  least,  PITT. 


Seven  Books 

i  2  3 

Cincinnati  Denver  New  York 

Newark  Detroit  Philadelphia 

New  York  Louisville 

Newark 

New  York 

Omaha 

Philadelphia 

Salt  Lake  City 


24 

Richmond 


29 

Memphis 
New  York 


Aberdeen 
Kansas  City 
Sacramento 


39 

Columbus 
Galveston 
Minneapolis 
New  York 


Group  Five 

Text-books  which  deal  fully  with  the  grievances  of  the  colonists, 
make  no  reference  to  general  political  conditions  in  England  prior  to 
the  American  Revolution,  nor  to  any  prominent  Englishmen  who 
devoted  themselves  to  the  cause  of  the  Americans. 


Fourteen  Books 

4  5  6 

New  York  Charleston,  W.  Va.     Aberdeen 

Dover 
Galveston 
Philadelphia 
San  Francisco 


Vicksburg 


Bangor 

Boise  City 

Charlotte 

Cheyenne 

Chicago 

Columbia 

Concord 

Deming 

Denver 

Detroit 

.Grand  Forks 

Kansas  City 

Louisville 

Milwaukee 

Montpelier 

New  York 

Philadelphia 

Providence 

San  Antonio 

San  Francisco 

St.  Louis 


Charlotte 
Memphis 
New  Orleans 
Vicksburg 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS 


ii 

New  York 
Philadelphia 
Salt  Lake  City 


12 

Charlotte 

Chicago 

Deming 

Detroit 

Madison 

Newark 

New  York 

Philadelphia 

Portland 

Washington 


13 

Columbus 
Indianapolis 
New  York 
San  Diego 


New  York 

Portland 


26 

Burlington 
New  York 
Phoenix 


28 

New  York 


30 

Baltimore 


32 

New  York 
Philadelphia 


35 

Columbia 
Galveston 
Milwaukee 
New  York 
Philadelphia 
Savannah 
Tallahassee 
Walla  Walla 


37 

New  York 
Savannah 


26  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 


CITIES  FROM  WHICH  THE  USE  OF  EACH  SEP 
ARATE  TEXT-BOOK  WAS  REPORTED 


BOOKS  IN  USE  AT  PRESENT 


Group  One 

Text-books  which  deal  fully  with  the  grievances  of  the  colonists  give, 
an  account  of  general  political  conditions  in  England  prior  to  the 
American  Revolution,  and  give  credit  to  orominent  Englishmen  for  the 
services  they  rendered  the  Americans. 

Six  Books 

49  52  61  67 

Boise  City  Boston  Boston  New  York 

Boston  Detroit  Denver 

Butte  Milwaukee  Kansas  City 

Louisville  New  York 

Manchester  Salt  Lake  City 


91  92 

Boston  Boston 

Chicago  Columbus 

Newark  Detroit 

New  York  Madison 
Philadelphia 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  27 

Group  Two 

Text-books  which  deal  fully  with  the  grievances  of  the  colonists, 
make  some  reference  to  general  political  conditions  in  England  prior  to 
the  American  Revolution,  and  mention  some  prominent  Englishmen 
who  rendered  services  to  the  Americans. 


«        41 
Boston 
Fort  Smith 
Savannah 

46 

Aberdeen 
Burlington 
Cheyenne 
Cincinnati 
Concord 
Detroit 
LouisvUJe 
Philadelphia 
Providence 


Fourteen  Books 
New  York  New  York  New  York 


47 

Chicago 
Columbus 


Hartford 
Milwaukee 
San  Antonio 


63 

Kansas  City 


66 

Bangor 

Boston 

Burlington 

Butte 

Concord 

Des  Moines 

Grand  Forks 

Hartford 

Indianapolis 

Kansas  City 

Milwaukee 

New  York 

Philadelphia 

Salt  Lake  City 

Vicksburg 


68 

Austin 


71 

Boston 


73 

Galveston 
Savannah 


84 

New  York^ 
Philadelphia 


,    87 
Bangor 

Boston 
Concord 


28  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

Group  Three 

Text-books  which  deal  fully  with  the  grievances  of  the  colonists, 
make  no  reference  to  general  political  conditions  in  England  prior  to 
the  American  Revolution,  but  make,  at  least,  favorable  mention  of 
several  prominent  Englishmen. 

Thirteen  Books 


65 

69                              70 

74 

Seattle 

Charlotte                   Boston 

Baltimore 

Richmond                  Portland 

Dover 

Tallahassee 

Hartford 

Helena 

Indianapolis 

Minneapolis 

Tucson 

75 

76                             78 

82 

Baltimore 

Baltimore                   Boston 

Aberdeen 

Cleveland 

Butte                           Butte 

Bangor 

Hartford 

Carson  City               Denver 

Boston 

New  York 

Charlotte                    Milwaukee 

Carson  City 

Philadelphia 
San  Francisco  -• 

Chicago                      New  York 
Des  Moines                Philadelphia 

Cheyenne 
Hartford 

St.  Louis 

Detroit                        San  Francisco* 

Newark 

Hartford 

New  York 

Milwaukee 

Philadelphia 

Montpelier 

Washington 

New  York 

Philadelphia 

Portland 

Tucson 

, 

St.  Louis 

83 

85                              86 

88 

Milwaukee 

Boston                       New  York 

Boston 

New  York 

Salt  Lake  City 

San  Diego 

Philadelphia 

90 

Aberdeen 

Boston 

Des  Moines 

Madison 

Milwaukee 

Philadelphia 

IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  29 

Group  Four 

Text-books  which  deal  fully  with  the  grievances  of  the  colonists, 
make  no  reference  to  general  political  conditions  in  England  prior  to 
the  American  Revolution,  but  mention,  at  least,  PITT. 

Five  Books 

51  57  64  72 

Raleigh  New  York  Bangor  Chicago 

Seattle  Boston 

Hartford 
Newark 
New  York 
Tppeka 
89 

Atlanta 

Charleston,  S.  C. 
Charlotte 
Columbia 
Memphis 
Montgomery 

Group  Five 

Text-books  which  deal  fully  with  the  grievances  of  the  colonists, 
make  no  reference  to  general  political  conditions  in  England  prior  to 
the  American  Revolution,  nor  to  any  prominent  Englishmen  who  de 
voted  themselves  to  the  cause  of  the  Americans. 

Fifteen  Books 
42  48  50  53 

New  York  Baltimore  Savannah  Baltimore 

Memphis  Boston • 

Richmond  New  York 

New  York  New  York  Savannah  Oklahoma 

San  Diego  Tallahassee 

60  62  77  .   79 

Austin  Chicago  Chicago  Cincinnati 

New  Orleans  Detroit  New  York  New  York 

Louisville  San  Diego  v 

Omaha 

Philadelphia 

80  81  93 

Bangor  Bangor  Charleston,  S.  C. 

Boston  Charleston,  W.  Va.  Charlotte 

Newark  Columbia 

New  York  Dove.r 

Washington  Hartford 

Newark 

New  York 

Washington 


30  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

These  data  can  likewise  merely  serve  as  an  indication. 
Correspondents  in  some  cities  have  reported  more  books 
in  active  use  than  others  have  done,  so  that  existing  condi 
tions  are  no  doubt  only  partially  reflected.  It  must  also  be 
borne  in  mind  that  the  circulation  of  different  text-books 
in  a  given  city  is  very  unequal,  and  that,  therefore,  one  text 
book  used  in  a  community  may  reach  a  greater  number  of 
pupils  than  another. 

Making,  however,  full  allowance  for  the  different  inac 
curacies  in  this  review  which  have  been  pointed  out  as  un 
avoidable,  and  for  others  which  may  have  crept  in  unnoticed, 
the  conclusions  seem  nevertheless  fairly  well  justified: 

The  great  majority  of  History  text-books,  used 
in  our  Public  Schools  more  than  twenty  years  ago, 
gave  a  very  incomplete jucjiire  of  gen^raLrjolj.tical 
conditions  in  EnglancTprior  to  the  American  Revo 
lution,  and  either  did  not  refer  at  all  to  the  great 
efforts  made  by  prominent  Englishmen  in  behalf  of 
the  Colonies,  or  mentioned  them  only  casually ; 

The  number  of  separate  History  text-books 
which  gave  this  incomplete  picture  was  not  only 
much  larger  than  the  number  of  those  giving  more 
complete  information,  but  the  former  circulated 
in  many  more  communities  throughout  our  country 
than  the  latter ; 

The  public  mind  must  thereby  have  been  prej 
udiced  against  England ; 

The  children  now  studying  American  History  in 
the  Public  Schools  have  a  far  greater  number  of 
text-books  available  which  give  relatively  complete 
information  on  this  subject;  but  the  improve 
ment  is  by  no  means  sufficiently  marked  to  prevent 
continued  growth  of  unfounded  prejudice  against 
England. 

A  perusal  of  the  accompanying  extracts  from  the  differ 
ent  text-books  here  referred  to  will  give  a  more  accurate 
impression  of  the  picture  which  these  classifications  attempt 
to  summarize. 


EXTRACTS 


BOOKS  IN  USE  MORE  THAN  TWENTY  YEARS 

AGO 


GROUP  ONE 

Text-books 

which 

deal  fully  with  the  gtiej#nces  of  the  colonists, 
give  an  account  of  general  political  conditionsm  England 

prior  to  the  American  Revolution, 

and  give  credit  to  prominent  Englishmen 

for  the  services  they  rendered  the  Americans. 


From  History  of  the  United  States,  California  State  Series 

[7]* 

P.  112:  The  feeling  of  Americans  toward  the  home  government 
was  never  more  loyal  than  at  the  close  of  the  French  war.  Royal 
governors  asserted  that  the  colonies  were  aiming  at  independence, 
but  Americans,  with  one  voice,  denied—the  charge.  They  looked 
forward"to  a  great  development,  but  under  the  British  flag.  The 
coloni£sjQy.ed  England  far  more  than  they  loved  one  another. 

P.  113:  George  III.  and  his  Influence. — The  measures,  which  in 
a  dozen  years  changed  Americans  from  loyal  English  subjects  into 
the  defenders  of  a  new  nationality,  "fighting  for  their  just  and  equal 
position  among  the  powers  of  the  earth,"  must  not  be  regarded  as 
the  unanimous  will  of  the  people  of  England.  George  III.,  king 
from  1760  to  1820,  assumed  the  crown  as  a  young  man  obstinately 
minded  to  rule  in  his  own  fashion.  He  did  not,  like  the  Stuarts, 
seek  to  override  Parliament,  but  he  made  a  corrupt  Parliament 
the  servant  of  his  will.  The  English  monarch  united  with  the 
aristocracy  ruling  in  Parliament  ta_^ppress_4iiil]dic_pjBiriion  in  Eng 
land  and  self-government  in  America.  Even  a  king  cannot  stop 
the  growth  of  nations,  and  beneath  the  tyranny  of  George  III.  arose 
government  by  the  people  in  both  England  and  America. 

P.  115:  Pitt  was  out  of  power  and  absent  from  Parliament  on 
account  of  sickness.  One  opponent  of  the  bill,  however,  spoke  of 
Americans  as  "sons  of  liberty",  trained  by  hardship  and  danger  to 
maintain  their  rights.  His  word  received  no  attention  in  England, 
but  the  "sons  of  liberty"  heard  them  in  America. 

P.  118:  In  England  mexdiants  were  threatened  with  ruin  by  the 
loss  of  Americantrade  and  petjjiafte4-4.ar_ja_jc.epeal.  Grenville  had 
lost  his.  position.  Pitt  declared  "This  kingdom  has  no  right  to  lay 
a  tax  upon  the  colonies.  I  rejoice  that  £m£rica_  has  resisted." 
Fierce  debates  raged  in  Parliament  on~  tEe  question  "oT  repeal,  for 
Parliament  had  deliberately  proclaimed  its  right  to  tax  the  colonies, 
and  was  reluctant  to  take  back  its  words.  The  repeal  was  carried 
in  March,  1766,  but  at  the  same  time  a  Declaratory  Act  was  passed, 
opposed  only  by  Pitt  and  a  few  others,  stating  the  right  of  Parlia 
ment  "to  bind  the  colonies  and  people  of  America  in  all  things 
whatsoever."  An  outburst  of  joy  in  England  and  America  greeted 
the  news  of  repeal.  Americans  cared  very  little  about  the  declaratory 
act  so  long  as  nothing  was  done  to  enforce  it.  "They  blessed  their 
sovereign,  revered  the  wisdom  and  the  goodness  of  the  British 
Parliament,  and  felt  themselves  happy." 

P.  119:  This  was  the  spirit  of  the  succeeding  English  legislation 
that  led  to  the  American  Revolution — the  legislation  of  an  English 
Parliament  which  did  not  represent  the  will  of  the  English  people, 
but  was  controlled  and  managed  by  George  III. 

*The  numbers  correspond  with  the  numbers  of  the  text-books  as  listed 
on  pages  18,  19,  and  20. 

35 


36  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

P.  120:  "It  is  the  weight  of  that  preamble,"  said  the  noble-minded 
Burke,  defending  the  rights  of  Americans  on  the  floor  of  the  House 
of  Commons,  "and  not  the  weight  of  the  duty,  that  the  Americans 
are  unable  and  unwilling  to  bear.'* 

P.  121 :  Americans  hated  the  British  soldiers,  now  stationed  both 
at  New  York  and  Boston,  for  their  presence  was  a  constant  re 
minder  of  threatened  slavery. 

P.  122:  George  III.,  in  1770,  began  a  method  of  ruling  the  colonies 
by  royal  orders.  Not  waiting  for  the  formality  of  an  act  of  Parlia 
ment,  he  sent  instructions,  over  his  own  signature,  to  be  executed 
by  the  colonial  governors  through  military  force,  if  necessary.  By 
these  orders,  colonial  assemblies  were  dissolved,  unusual  places  were 
set  for  their  meeting,  and  their  organization  was  interfered  with. 
Americans  for  the  most  part  were  opposed  to  the  slave  trade,  but 
the  king  ordered  them  to  cease  their  efforts  to  stop  it. 

P.  123 :  The  Tea  Tax,  1773. — Americans  up  to  this  time  had  been 
in  the  habit  of  expressing  loyalty  to  the  king,  and  of  blaming  only 
his  ministers  and  corrupt  majorities  in  Parliament  for  their  troubles. 
They  did  not  know  that  the  king's  will  controlled  both  ministry  and 
Parliament.  The  king  was  anxious  "to  try  the  question  with 
America,"  and  the  tea  tax  was  selected  for  the  experiment. 

P.  127:  In  Parliament  there  were  great  debates  on  American 
affairs.  Burke  delivered  an  immortal  speech  in  favor  of  concilia 
tion  (March  22d,  1775),  proclaiming  that  the  fierce  spirit  of  liberty 
in  America  could  not  be  conquered,  but  his  eloquence  fell  unheeded 
upon  a  nation  whose  pride  of  mastery  had  been  wounded.  The 
policy  of  the  king  and  ministry  went  on  unchecked. 

P.  157:  Opinions  of  Englishmen. — After  Burgoyne's  surrender, 
the  Earl  of  Chatham  (Pitt),  in  the  English  House  of  Lords,  repeated 
what  Burke  had  proclaimed  to  the  House  of  Commons  in  1775 : 
"My  Lords",  he  said,  "you  cannot  conquer  America.  In  three  years' 
campaign  we  have  done  nothing  and  suffered  much.  You  may 
swell  every  expense,  accumulate  every  assistance  you  can  buy  or 
borrow,  traffic  and  barter  with  every  little  pitiful  German  prince, 
your  efforts  are  forever  vain  and  impotent,  doubly  so  from  this 
mercenary  aid  on  which  you  rely,  for  it  irritates  to  an  incurable 
resentment.  If  I  were  an  American,  as  I  am  an  Englishman,  while 
a  foreign  troop  was  landed  in  my  country,  I  never  would  lay  down 
my  arms — never,  NEVER,  NEVER."  In  the  House  of  Commons 
Burke  continued  to  speak  for  the  Americans,  supported  now  by 
Charles  James  Fox,  the  youngest  defender  of  the  American  cause, 
and  one  of  the  most  brilliant  of  English  statesmen.  Even  now  Fox 
demanded  the  recognition  of  American  independence. 


"THE   LEGISLATION   OF   AN   ENGLISH   PARLIA 
MENT  WHICH  DID  NOT  REPRESENT  THE 
WILL  OF  THE  ENGLISH  PEOPLE." 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  37 

From  Fiske's  History  of  the  United  States 
[16] 

P.  182:  .  .  .  and  the  smuggling  of  foreign  goods  into  Boston 
and  New  York  and  other  seaport  towns  was  winked  at.  ... 

P.  191 :  As  the  Americans  would  not  buy  or  use  the  stamps,  Par 
liament  repealed  the  Stamp  Act  the  next  year,  1766,  after  a  fierce 
debate  that  lasted  three  months.  William  Pitt  declared  that  such 
an  act  should  never  have  been  passed,  and  he  praised  the  Americans 
for  resisting  a  bad  and  dangerous  law.  The  majority  in  Parliament 
did  not  take  this  view ;  they  repealed  the  law  as  a  concession  to  the 
Americans,  but  declared  that  Parliament  had  a  right  to  make  what 
ever  laws  it  pleased.  But  some  men  of  great  influence  agreed  with 
Pitt  in  holding  that  such  a  form  of  taxation  without  representation 
was  unconstitutional  and  ought  to  be  resisted. 

Taxation  in  England.  The  People  of  London  were  delighted  at 
the  repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act,  and  it  seemed  as  if  all  the  trouble  were 
at  an  end.  So  it  might  have  been,  but  for  that  agreement  of 
opinion  between  the  Americans  and  Pitt.  In  getting  such  a  power 
ful  friend  in  Pitt,  the  Americans  found  an  implacable  enemy  in 
the  new  king,  George  III.,  who  had  come  to  the  throne  in  1760,  at 
the  age  of  twenty-two.  There  was  then  going  on  in  England  a  hot 
dispute  over  this  very  same  business  of  "no  taxation  without 
representation",  and  it  was  a  dispute  in  which  the  youthful  king 
felt  bound  to  oppose  Pitt  to  the  bitter  end.  Let  us  see  just  what  the 
dispute  was. 

In  such  a  body  as  the  British  House  of  Commons  or  the  Amer 
ican  House  of  Representatives,  the  different  parts  of  the  country 
are  represented  according  to  population.  For  example,  today  New 
York,  with  over  5,000,000  inhabitants,  has  thirty-four  representa 
tives  in  Congress,  while  Delaware,  with  about  170,000  inhabitants, 
has  only  one  representative.  This  is  a  fair  proportion ;  but  as  pop 
ulation  increases  faster  in  some  places  than  in  others,  the  same  pro 
portion  is  liable  to  become  unfair.  To  keep  it  fair  it  must  now  and 
then  be  changed.  In  the  United  States,  every  tenth  year,  after  a 
new  census  has  been  taken,  we  have  the  seats  in  the  House  of 
Representatives  freshly  distributed  among  the  States,  so  that  the 
representation  is  always  kept  pretty  fair.  A  hundred  men  in  any 
one  part  of  the  country  count  for  about  as  much  as  a  hundred  in 
any  other  part. 

Now  in  England,  when  George  III.  came  to  the  throne,  there  had 
been  nothing  like  a  redistribution  of  seats  in  the  House  of  Commons 
for  more  than  two  hundred  years.  During  that  time,  some  old 
towns  and  districts  had  dwindled  in  population,  and  some  great 
cities  had  lately  grown  up,  such  as  Manchester  and  Sheffield.  These 
cities  had  no  representatives  in  Parliament,  which  was  as  absurd 
and  unfair  as  it  would  be  for  a  great  state  like  Missouri  to  have  no 
representatives  in  Congress.  On  the  other  hand,  the  little  towns  and 
thinly  peopled  districts  kept  on  having  just  as  many  representatives 
as  ever.  One  place,  the  famous  Old  Sarum,  had  members  in 
Parliament  long  after  it  had  ceased  to  have  any  inhabitants  at  alll 


38  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

The  result  was  that  people  who  could  not  get  representation  in 
Parliament  by  fair  means  got  it  by  foul  means.  Seats  for  the  little 
towns  and  districts  were  simply  bought  and  sold,  and  such  practices 
made  political  life  at  that  time  very  corrupt.  Parliament  did  not 
truly  represent  the  people  of  Great  Britain;  it  represented  the  group 
of  powerful  persons  that  could  buy  up  enough  seats  to  control  a 
majority  of  votes. 

During  the  reigns  of  the  first  two  Georges,  this  group  of  power 
ful  persons  consisted  of  the  leaders  of  the  party  of  Old  Whigs. 
They  ruled  England,  and  reduced  the  power  of  the  crown  to  insig 
nificance.  Their  rule  was  mostly  wise  and  good,  but  it  was  partly 
based  on  bribery  and  corruption.  The  Old  Whigs  may  be  called  the 
Aristocratic  party.  Among  their  leaders  were  such  great  men  as 
Charles  Fox  and  Edmund  Burke. 

When  George  III.  became  king,  he  was  determined  to  be  a  real 
king,  to  set  the  old  Whig  families  at  defiance,  and  to  rule  Great 
Britain  according  to  his  own  notions.  In  these  views  the  young  king 
was  generally  supported  by  the  Tories,  whom  we  may  call  the 
Royalist  party.  In  order  to  succeed  in  their  schemes,  it  was  neces 
sary  to  beat  the  old  Whigs  at  their  own  game,  and  secure  a  steady 
majority  in  Parliament  by  methods  involving  bribery  and  corrup 
tion. 

Besides  these  two  parties  of  Tories  and  Old  Whigs,  a  third  had 
been  for  some  time  growing  up.  It  was  called  the  party  of  New 
Whigs.  As  opposed  alike  to  Royalists  and  Aristocrats,  the  New 
Whigs  were  the  Democrats  of  that  time.  Among  sundry  reforms 
advocated  by  them,  the  most  important  was  the  redistribution  of 
seats  in  the  House  of  Commons.  They  wished  to  stop  the  whole 
sale  corruption,  and  to  make  that  assembly  truly  represent  the  people 
of  Great  Britain.  The  principal  leader  of  this  party  was  William 
Pitt,  who,  in  1766,  became  Earl  of  Chatham. 

We  can  now  see  why  the  antagonism  between  the  king  and 
Pitt  was  so  obstinate  and  bitter.  With  a  reformed  Parliament, 
the  king's  schemes  would  be  nowhere;  their  only  chance  of  success 
lay  in  keeping  the  old  kind  of  Parliament  with  all  its  corruptions. 
So  when  Pitt  declared  that  it  was  wrong  for  the  people  of  great 
cities,  like  Leeds  and  Birmingham,  who  paid  their  full  share  of 
taxes,  not  to  be  represented  in  Parliament,  the  king  felt  this  to  be 
a  very  dangerous  argument.  He  felt  bound  to  oppose  it  by  every 
means  in  his  power. 

Now  the  debates  on  the  Stamp  Act  showed  that  the  same  principle 
applied  to  the  Americans  as  to  the  inhabitants  of  Birmingham  and 
Leeds.  "No  taxation  without  representation,"  the  watchword  of 
Patrick  Henry  and  Samuel  Adams,  was  also  the  watchword  of 
William  Pitt.  The  king,  therefore,  felt  that  in  the  repeal  of  the 
Stamp  Act,  no  matter  on  what  ground,  the  New  Whigs  had  come 
altogether  too  near  winning  a  victory.  He  could  not  let  the  matter 
rest,  but  felt  it  necessary  to  take  it  up  again,  and  press  it  until  the 
Americans  should  submit  to  be  taxed  by  Parliament.  This  quarrel 
between  George  III.  and  the  Americans  grew  into  the  Revolution 
ary  War.  In  that  struggle,  the  people  of  England  were  not  our 
enemies ;  we  had  nowhere  better  friends  than  among  the  citizens  of 
London,  and  on  the  floors  of  the  House  of  Commons  and  the 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  39 

House  of  Lords.  As  a  rule,  the  New  Whigs  and  Old  Whigs  sym 
pathized  with  the  Americans;  of  the  Tories,  some  went  heartily 
with  the  king,  while  others  disapproved  his  measures,  but  were 
unwilling  to  oppose  them.  Among  the  Americans  there  were  a 
good  many  Tories,  mostly  of  the  latter  class. 

P.  201 :  This  sending  of  the  tea  was  not  a  commercial  operation, 
but  simply  a  political  trick.  It  was  George  III.'s  way  of  asking  the 
Americans,  "What  are  you  going  to  do  about  it?"  Such  an  insult 
ing  challenge  merited  the  reception  which  it  got. 

P.  202 :  By  sunrise  next  morning,  the  revenue  officers  would  board 
the  ships  and  unload  their  cargoes,  the  consignees  would  go  to  the 
custom  house  and  pay  the  duty,  and  thus  the  king's  audacious  scheme 
would  be-  crowned  with  success.  The  only  way  to  prevent  such  a 
wicked  result  was  to  rip  open  the  tea  chests  and  spill  their  contents 
into  the  sea — 

P.  208 :  His  only  reply  was  a  proclamation  calling  for  troops  to 
put  down  the  rebellion  in  America.  Finding  that  Englishmen  gener 
ally  were  unwilling  to  volunteer  in  a  war  for  that  purpose,  he 
hired  about  20,000  German  troops  from  the  Duke  of  Brunswick,  the 
Landgrave  of  Hesse  Cassel,  and  other  petty  princes. 

Nothing  went  further  to  enrage  the  Americans  and  urge  them  for 
ward  to  a  declaration  of  independence  than  this  hiring  of  foreigners 
to  fight  against  them. 


"PARLIAMENT  DID  NOT  TRULY  REPRESENT 
THE  PEOPLE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN." 


40  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Scudder's  A  New  History  of  the  United  States 

[33] 

P.  126:  Now  Parliament  was  supposed  to  be  the  choice  of  the 
people ;  in  reality  it  was  the  mouthpiece  of  a  few  powerful  families. 
There  was,  however,  one  notable  exception,  William  Pitt,  called  the 
Great  Commoner,  because  the  people  at  large  instinctively  felt  that 
he  was  their  champion  and  leader.  Pitt  was  at  the  head  of  a  rising 
party  known  as  the  New  Whigs.  Their  aim  was  to  make  Parlia 
ment  really  represent  the  people  instead  of  being  a  political  machine 
used  by  the  Old  Whig  group.  This  party,  though  a  small  one  at 
first,  was,  in  fact,  fighting  for  constitutional  liberty  in  England. 

When  George  III.  came  to  the  throne,  a  new,  or  more  strictly 
speaking,  the  revival  of  an  old  force  in  government  was  seen.  As 
the  Stuart  kings  had  tried  to  establish  a  nearly  absolute  monarchy, 
so  George  III.  was  determined  to  be  the  real  ruler  of  the  country. 
He  drew  about  him  the  Tory  party,  and  undertook  by  means  of  his 
cabinet  to  manage  the  affairs  of  England  and  her  colonies.  It  is 
needful  to  bear  this  in  mind,  if  one  would  understand  the  attitude 
which  America  bore  to  England. 

P.  128:  There  was  nothing  unusual  in  the  attitude  which  England 
took  toward  the  colonies.  They  belonged  to  her  according  to  the 
theory  of  the  time,  and  moreover  she  had  just  been  waging  a  costly 


P.  129:  "Taxation  without  representation  is  Tyranny." — This 
sentence  became  a  watchword  in  America  during  the  exciting  times 
which  followed.  The  people  meant  by  the  phrase  that  they  were  as 
much  Englishmen  as  those  who  lived  in  England.  They  said  that 
for  Parliament  to  tax  them  without  giving  them  a  voice  in  making 
the  laws,  either  in  Parliament  or  in  their  own  assemblies,  was  to 
treat  them  as  if  they  were  a  subject  people. 

The  force  of  the  watchword  is  more  apparent  if  we  consider  that 
the  American  people  were  far  more  directly  and  completely  repre 
sented  in  their  assemblies  than  the  English  were  in  Parliament.  The 
right  to  vote  for  members  of  Parliament  was  confined  to  certain 
classes  in  England,  ^and  the  members  elected  did  not  in  any  special 
way  represent  the  interests  of  the  place  where  they  were  elected. 
In  America,  all  but  a  few  men  had  the  right  to  vote,  and  the  mem 
bers  elected  to  the  assemblies  spoke  for  their  neighbors. 

P.  133 :  The  effect  was  felt  in  England,  where  a  small  party  in 
Parliament  upheld  the  colonists.  In  the  House  of  Commons  William 
Pitt  uttered  the  memorable  words :  "The  gentlemen  tell  us  that 
America  is  obstinate,  America  is  almost  in  open  rebellion.  Sir,  I 
rejoice  that  America  has  resisted!  Three  millions  of  people,  so  dead 
to  all  the  feelings  of  liberty  as  voluntarily  to  submit  to  be  slaves, 
would  have  been  fit  instruments  to  make  slaves  of  all  the  rest." 

P.  136:  There  was  no  quarrel  between  the  king's  ministry  and 
Parliament,  but  the  colonies  for  some  time  maintained  the  position 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  41 

that  they  were  loyal  subjects  of  the  king  and  resisted  only  the  illegal 
acts  of  Parliament. 

P.  150:  And  yet  the  cause  of  the  Americans  was  upheld  by  some 
of  the  greatest  Englishmen  of  the  day,  who  perceived  clearly  that 
-the  cause  was  one  of  free  government,  and  that  England  was 
deeply  concerned.  Edmund  Burke,  one  of  the  most  far-sighted 
statesmen  of  the  time,  spoke  earnestly  in  Parliament  against  the 
policy  the  King  was  pursuing.  The  Earl  of  Chatham,  also,  in  the 
House  of  Lords,  though  failing  in  strength  of  body,  was  unceasing 
in  his  opposition  to  the  repressive  policy. 

P.  173:  But  King  George,  whose  insanity  was  gaining  on  him, 
hated  the  Earl  of  Chatham  with  a  furious  hatred,  and  utterly  refused 
to  call  him  to  his  aid  as  prime  minister.  He  might  even  have  been 
compelled  to  call  him,  and  Chatham  might  even  then  have  restored 
peace  and  formed  some  kind  of  union  between  Great  Britain  and 
America,  but  he  died  shortly  after. 


GEORGE  III.  UNDERTOOK  BY  MEANS  OF  HIS 

CABINET  TO  MANAGE  THE  AFFAIRS  OF 

ENGLAND  AND  HER  COLONIES." 


42  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Thomas'  History  of  the  United  States 

[40] 

P.  81 :  In  England,  law-makers  were,  or  professed  to  be,  elected 
by  the  people  to  represent  them,  and  so  the  people  had  a  voice  in 
laying  their  own  taxes;  but  the  colonists  were  not  represented  in 
the  British  Parliament,  and  so  if  Parliament  laid  taxes  upon  the 
colonists  there  would  be  "taxation  without  representation",  which 
was  contrary  to  the  custom  and  principles  of  the  colonists. 

P.  82 :  .  .  .  and  that  colonies  existed  for  the  good  of  the  mother 
country  was  an  axiom  of  most  governments. 

P.  83:  In  considering  the  relations  between  England  and  the 
colonies,  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  English  government  at 
this  time  was  very  corrupt,  and  bribery  was  recognized,  even  by  the 
officers  of  state,  as  a  regular  means  of  securing  legislation.  The 
House  of  Commons  no  longer  represented  the  English  people,  for 
in  a  population  of  about  8,000,000,  there  were  less  than  175,000  voters. 
The  election  districts  had  not  been  changed  for  a  very  long  time, 
large  cities  had  grown  up  without  any  representation  at  all,  and  other 
districts  represented  a  very  small  population.  In  one  place,  Old 
Sarum,  three  voters  elected  two  members  of  Parliament.  By  this 
means  many  members  of  Parliament  were  chosen  according  to  the 
wish  of  those  of  the  nobility  who  were  large  landlords,  and  con 
trolled  the  votes  of  their  tenants.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  for  a  good 
part  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  House  of  Commons  was  ruled  by 
the  House  of  Lords. 

Notwithstanding  that  the  British  Parliament  was  so  little  of  a 
representative  body,  it  is  likely  that  most  of  their  measures  relating 
to  the  colonies  were  fairly  in  accord  with  the  common  sentiments  of 
the  people,  for  neither  the  people  nor  the  Parliament  understood 
the  real  state  of  affairs. 

FOOT  NOTE:  The  great  William  Pitt  entered  Parliament  (i735) 
as  a  member  for  Old  Sarum,  owing  his  election  to  the  influence  of 
the  noble  landowner  of  that  district. 

P.  85:  There  was  little  opposition  to  the  passage  of  the  act  in 
Parliament,  Colonel  Isaac  Barre  making  the  only  strong  speech 
against  it.  In  this  speech  he  repudiated  the  idea  that  the  colonists 
owed  anything  to  English  care,  but  claimed  that  her  neglect  had 
rather  stimulated  them.  This  speech,  as  well  as  others,  gained  him 
the  admiration  of  the  Americans,  and  they  adopted  as  their  own  a 
phrase  he  used  on  another  occasion  when  he  called  them  "Sons  of 
Liberty." 

P.  87:  William  Pitt,  in  the  House  of  Commons,  said,  "I  rejoice 
that  America  has  resisted" ;  but  he  also  said,  "I  assert  the  authority 
of  this  kingdom  over  the  colonists  to  be  sovereign  and  supreme  in 
every  circumstance  of  government  and  legislation  whatever — Tax 
ation  is  no  part  of  the  legislative  or  governing  power.  Taxes  are  a 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  43 

voluntary  gift  and  grant  of  the  Commons  alone."  Moved  by  all 
these  things,  Parliament,  in  1766,  repealed  the  Stamp  Act,  but  at 
the  same  time  passed  a  Declaratory  Act,  setting  forth  that  "the 
crown,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  Parliament,"  "had,  hath,  and 
of  right  ought  to  have,  full  power  and  authority  to  make  laws  and 
statutes  of  sufficient  force  and  validity  to  bind  the  colonies  and 
peoples  of  America,  subjects  of  the  crown  of  Great  Britain  in  all 
cases  whatever." 

It  is  important  to  remember  that  the  object  of  this  taxation  was 
not  to  help  pay  the  expenses  of  the  government  at  home,  nor  was  it 
to  help  pay  the  interest  on  the  debt,  but  all  the  expected  revenue  was 
to  be  spent  in  or  for  the  colonies  themselves. 

P.  88:  The  grounds  of  their  objection  were  that  the  money  was 
raised  without  their  consent,  and  that  the  taxes  were  laid  by  a  body 
in  which  they  had  no  representation. 

P.  93 :  William  Pitt,  now  become  Earl  of  Chatham,  was  prevented 
by  ill  health  from  taking  any  part  in  political  matters ;  .  .  . 

P.  95:  Though  Burke,  Barre,  and  Chatham  opposed  these  bills, 
they  were  passed  by  large  majorities  in  Parliament. 

P.  103 :  There  was  now  presented  the  curious  spectacle  of  a  Con 
gress  fighting  against  the  armies  of  the  king,  and  exercising  many 
of  the  prerogatives  of  an  independent  government,  and  yet  protest 
ing  that  it  had  no  wish  for  independence. 


PICTURE  OF  THE  CONDITIONS  IN  ENGLAND 
PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION  AND  OF  THE 
EFFORTS  MADE  BY  PROMINENT  ENG 
LISHMEN  IN  FAVOR  OF  THE 
COLONIES. 


BOOKS  IN  USE  MORE  THAN  TWENTY  YEARS 

AGO 


GROUP  TWO 

Text-books 

which 

deal  fully  with  the  grievances  of  the  colonists, 
make  some  reference  to  general  political  conditions  in  England 

prior  to  the  American  Revolution, 

and  mention  some  prominent  Englishmen 

who    rendered    services    to    the   Americans. 


From  Oilman's  The  Making  of  the  American  Nation 


P.  8  :  The  Americans  had  no  desire  to  be  represented  in  the  home 
government,  and  they  did  not  complain  that  they  were  constrained  in 
their  personal  liberty;  but  they  objected  to  the  navigation  laws  that 
kept  them  from  buying  and  selling  where  they  pleased,  and  they  com 
plained  that  they  were  arbitrarily  taxed  in  vexatious  ways. 

P.  13:  The  intention  of  the  British  government  was  to  make  all 
American  trade  profitable  to  England  only;  and  next  to  govern 
the  colonies  from  England,  not  allowing  the  inhabitants  any  voice  in 
the  matter.  The  ministers  of  the  king  told  the  English  people  that 
taxes  upon  the  Americans  would  make  their  own  lighter,  as  I  have 
shown.  They  were  mistaken  in  thinking  that  the  colonists  would 
bear  such  an  imposition. 

P.  43  :  When  King  George  the  Third  heard  that  the  Stamp  Act, 
which  was  a  favorite  of  his,  had  been  resisted,  —  in  fact,  that  it  was 
not  allowed  to  go  into  effect  anywhere,  —  he  was  very  wroth.  He 
was  an  obstinate,  self-willed  man,  very  fond  of  authority,  and  espe 
cially  determined  that  his  subjects,  English  and  American,  should 
not  share  his  power.  He  was  not  a  good  king  for  England  at  that 
time. 

The  people  of  the  mother-country  were  not  truly  represented  by 
the  rulers.  From  the  king  down,  those  in  authority  lacked  the  kind 
feeling  for  their  American  brethren  that  was  felt  by  most  of  the 
middle  class  of  Englishmen.  Britons  generally  loved  liberty  quite 
as  much  as  the  Americans,  and  they  professed  to  like  fair  play. 
They  did  not  all,  or  most  of  them,  think  that  the  stamp  act  was 
right,  and  there  were  not  wanting  men  among  them  who  dared  to 
speak  out  plainly  in  favor  of  repealing. 

William  Pitt  was  one  of  these  outspoken  men.  He  made  a  great 
speech  in  Parliament  in  which  he  said,  "I  shall  never  own  the 
justice  of  taxing  America  internally,  until  she  enjoys  the  right  of 
representation  ...  I  rejoice  that  America  has  resisted."  The 
great  orator,  Edmund  Burke,  was  another. 

P.  52  :  In  studying  this  period  of  pur  history,  we  must  not  forget 
that  all  Englishmen  did  not  think  with  the  king,  and  that  all  Amer 
icans  even  did  not  feel  sure  that  the  colonists  were  right.  .  .  . 

P.  76:  If  the  war  had  been  popular  in  England,  the  difficulty 
would  not  have  been  so  great.  The  citizens  of  London  were  very 
much  opposed  to  fighting  their  brethren,  and  so  were  many  of  the 
people  of  other  cities. 


THE  PEOPLE  OF  THE  MOTHER  COUNTRY 

WERE  NOT  TRULY  REPRESENTED  BY 

THE  RULERS." 

47 


48         •     THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Higginson's  Young  Folks'  History  of  the 
United  States 

*  [20] 

• 

P.  160:  When  we  think  about  the  Revolutionary  War,  we  are 
very  apt  to  suppose  that  the  colonies  deliberately  came  together, 
and  resolved  to  throw  off  the  yoke  of  Great  Britain.  But  this  was 
not  the  case  at  all.  When  the  troubles  began,  most  of  the  people 
supposed  themselves  to 'be  very  loyal;  and  they  were  ready  to  shout 
"God  save  King  George  I"  Even  after  they  had  raised  armies,  and 
h'ad  begun  to  fight,  the  Continental  Congress  said,  "We  have  not 
raised  armies  with  the^  ambitious  design  of  separating  from  Great 
Britain,  and  establishing  independent  States."  They  would  have 
been  perfectly  satisfied  to  go  on  as  they  were,  if  the  British  Gov 
ernment  had  only  treated  them  in  a  manner  they  thought  just;  that 
is,  if  Great  Britain  either  had  not  taxed  them,  or  had  let  them  send 
representatives  to  parliament  in  return  for  paying  taxes.  This 
wish  was  considered  perfectly  reasonable  by  many  of  the  wisest 
Englishmen  of  that  day ;  and  these  statesmen  would  have  gladly 
consented  to  either  of  these  measures.  But  King  George  III.  and 
his  advisers  would  not  consent;  ..  .  '. 

P.  161 :  There  'was  nothing  very  bad  about  the  law  called  the 
"Stamp 'Act",  in  itself;  and  Englishmen  would  not  have  complained 
of  it  at  home.  .  .  .  Even  in  the  British  Parliament,  when  the 
Stamp  Act  was  being  discussed,  there  were  persons  who  had  been  in 
America,  and  who  declared  that  the  imposed  law  was  very  unjust. 
The  member  to  whom  the  people  of  America  felt  most  grateful, 
was  Colonel  Barre,  who  had  fought  under  General  Wolfe  at  the 
taking  of  Quebec. 

P.  165 :  Similar  things  happened  in  other  States ;  so  that  nobody 
dared  to  act  as  stamp-officer,  and  the  law  was  never  enforced.  The 
news  went  quickly  to  England ;  and,  while  the  king  and  his  ministers 
were  enraged,  there  were  many  in  parliament  to  defend  the  cause 
of  the  Americans. 

The  statesman,  William  Pitt,  Earl  of  Chatham,  said,  "The  gentle 
man  tells  us  that  America  is  obstinate ;  America  is  almost  in  open 
rebellion.  /  rejoice  that  America  has  resisted" 

By  the  strong  efforts  of  such  men  as  Lord  Chatham,  the  Stamp 
Act  was  repealed  in  just  a  year  from  its  passage;  .  .  . 

P.  169:  This  affair  made  an  intense  excitement;  and  Captain 
Preston  (who  had  given  the  order  to  fire,  at  the  Boston  Massacre) 
was  tried  for  murder.  But  some  of  the  leading  lawyers  of  Boston, 
who  were  also  eminent  patriots,  defended  him  on  the  ground  that 
he  had  done  his  duty  as  an  officer ;  and  he  was  acquitted.  .  .  . 

P.  171 :  .  .  .  and  men  £elt  more  and  more  disposed  to  resist 
what  they  thought  the  unlawful  acts  of  King  George  and  his  ministry. 

P.  174:  Instead  of  this,  it  made  them  (the  colonies)  unite  more 
firmly,  and  take  up  the  cause  of  Boston  as  their  own. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  49 

This  was  just  what  the  wisest  men  in  the  British  parliament, 
such  as  Edmund  Burke  and  Charles  James  Fox,  had  predicted. 
They  had  warned  the  government  that  the  American  people  would 
be  driven  into  open  rebellion  by  such  measures.  But  King  George 
was  a  very  obstinate  man,  and  used  all  his  influence  in  parliament 
to  push  such  laws  through. 

P.  176:  Then  we  must  remember  that  there  were  other  men,  and 
often  good  men,  too,  who  felt  very  sad  about  all  this,  and  who 
thought  that  it  was  very  wrong  to  resist  King  George,  and  that  it 
would  ruin  the  colonies  even  to  attempt  such  a  thing;  and  who 
tried,  with  tears  in  their  eyes,  to  persuade  the  patriots  to  listen  to 
reason.  These  were  generally  the  rich  and  prosperous  men,  and 
those  who  held  offices  under  the  British  government;  in  short,  the 
people  who  had  most  to  lose  by  war  in  any  case. 


DISTINCTION  BETWEEN  ATTITUDE  OF  THE 
KING  AND  OF  PROMINENT  ENGLISH 
MEN  INDICATED. 


50  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Johnston's  History  of  the  United  States 

[22] 

P.  81 :  The  British  government  was  neither  wise  nor  prudent. 
Most  of  its  power  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Parliament,  which  was 
not  elected  by  the  whole  people.  By  artful  contrivance  or  by  acci 
dent,  the  laws  of  election  were  such  that  a  few  rich  men,  nobles  or 
landowners,  controlled  the  election  of  most  of  the  members  of  the 
House  of  Commons.  In  most  matters,  these  richer  men  were  divided 
into  two  parties,  which  opposed  one  another.  In  regard  to  Amer 
ican  affairs,  they  were  now  united  by  reason  of  heavy  taxes  in  a 
claim  which  could  not  help  making  them  the  enemy  of  the  colonies. 

.  .  .  The  Parliament  had  forced  the  kings  to  yield  to  it  the  power 
to  lay  taxes  in  Great  Britain :  it  now  began  to  claim  a  right  to  lay 
taxes  on  the  colonies,  even  against  the  will  of  the  colonies  them 
selves  .  .  . 

P.  82:  On  this  question,  of  "Taxation  without  Representation," 
the  Parliament  and  the  colonies  were  now  to  quarrel  for  twelve 
years  until  force  was  used ;  then  came  the  Revolutionary  War. 

P.  84:  The  British  government  was  taken  aback  by  the  stir  in 
America.  English  manufacturers  petitioned  for  the  repeal  of  the 
Stamp  Act,  for  the  American  merchants  and  people  had  agreed  not 
to  buy  any  more  English  goods  until  the  repeal  should  take  place. 
Pitt  and  other  friends  of  the  colonies  in  Parliament  urged  the 
repeal.  Finally,  there  was  a  change  of  government  in  Great  Britain, 
another  political  party  came  into  power,  and  early  in  1766  the  act 
was  repealed.  Parliament  still  declared  its  right  to  tax  the  colonies, 
if  it  should  wish  to  do  so ;  but  the  Americans  were  convinced  that 
it  would  never  again  attempt  to  do  so,  and  were  willing  to  make  the 
repeal  pleasant  for  Great  Britain. 

P.  85 :  .  .  .  but  the  colonists  in  general  were  very  anxious 
to  show  that  they  were  "loyal  subjects  of  the  King — God  bless 
him!"  .  .  . 

At  first,  they  only  suggested  different  means  by  which  members 
from  the  colonies  might  be  admitted  to  Parliament.  Many  eminent 
men  in  Great  Britain  desired  such  an  arrangement,  and  it  is  possible 
that  it  might  have  been  successful.  But  the  king,  an  honest  but  very 
obstinate  man,  had  lofty  ideas  of  his  own  dignity,  and  was  deter 
mined  to  make  the  colonies  submit  without  debate.  His  friends  in 
Parliament  now  began  a  new  scheme,  which  increased  all  the  pre 
vious  difficulties  a  hundredfold. 

P.  103:  The  people  in  England  had  offered  many  expressions  of 
sympathy  for  the  colonies.  A  number  of  officers  in  the  army  had 
resigned  their  commissions  rather  than  serve  in  America.  Peti 
tions  against  the  war  had  been  offered  to  the  king  and  Parliament 
from  many  towns.  The  city  of  London  had  declared  its  abhorrence 
of  the  measures  designed  to  oppress  "our  fellow  subjects  in  the 
colonies,"  and  had  begged  the  king  to  change  his  government.  But 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  51 

none  of  these  expressions  had  any  influence  upon  those  who  had 
power  in  Great  Britain;  and,  as  the  war  grew  angrier,  English  ex 
pressions  of  sympathy  for  the  colonies  became  fewer.  .  . 

The  hired  soldiers  from  Hesse-Cassel,  called  Hessians,  who  could 
speak  no  English,  were  particularly  hated  by  the  colonists,  and  were 
accused  of  numberless  cruelties  during  the  war. 


CONDITIONS  IN  ENGLAND  PRIOR  TO  THE  REVO 
LUTION  REFERRED  TO,  BUT  NO  ADE 
QUATE  MENTION  OF  THE  SERVICES 
RENDERED  THE  COLONIES  BY 
PROMINENT  ENGLISHMEN. 


52  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Lossing's  School  History  of  the  United  States 

[23] 

P.  115:  The  colonists  could  not  complain  of  the  willful  exercise  of 
actual  tyranny  by  the  rulers  of  Great  Britain.  There  was  no  motive 
for  such  conduct.  They  complained  of  an  illiberal  policy  toward 
them,  rigidly  enforced,  concerning  manufactures  and  commerce; 
the  exactions  and  haughtiness  of  the  royal  governors  sent  to  rule 
them  without  their  leave ;  and  above  all,  the  exercise,  by  the  home 
government,  of  the  asserted  right  to  tax  the  colonists  without  their 
consent,  and  without  allowing  them  representatives  in  the  British 
Parliament. 

P.  116:  A  young  monarch,  virtuous  and  of  upright  intentions,  was 
just  seated  (1761)  upon  the  British  throne.  Having  confidence  in 
his  integrity,  and  having  recently  felt  the  justice  of  the  government 
under  the  direction  of  Pitt,  they  were  disposed  to  forget  their 
grievances. 

P.  117:  Had  the  young  king  listened  to  the  counsels  of  wise  men 
like  Pitt,  the  Americans  might  have  been  loyal  subjects  during  his 
long  reign. 

P.  119:  England  was  touched  in  a  tender  point — her  commerce; 
and  her  merchants  and  manufacturers  joined  with  the  Americans  in 
a  demand  for  the  repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act.  The  government  was 
compelled  to  listen ;  and  on  the  i8th  of  March,  1766,  the  obnoxious 
act  was  repealed.  Pitt  was  then  in  the  Parliament,  and  with  Burke, 
Barre,  and  others,  was  chiefly  instrumental  in  accomplishing  that 
result.  The  repeal  gave  joy  in  England  and  America. 

New  trouble  soon  appeared.  While  Pitt  applauded  the  Americans 
for  resisting  the  stamp  tax,  he  appended  to  the  repeal  bill  a  declara 
tion  that  the  British  Parliament  had  the  right  "to  bind  the  colonies  in 
any  manner  whatsoever."  Without  this  concession  to  British  pride, 
it  was  said,  the  repeal  bill  could  not  have  become  law.  But  Pitt's 
expedient  was  hurtful;  for  under  the  sanction  of  that  Declaratory 
Act,  as  it  was  called,  the  British  ministry  planned  and  executed 
measures  for  taxing  the  Americans  quite  as  odious  in  principle  as 
the  Stamp  Tax. 

P.  120:  This  palpable  attempt  to  enslave  the  Americans  filled 
them  with  burning  indignation. 

P.  122:  A  minority  in  the  British  House  of  Commons  took  the 
same  position.  Burke  denounced  the  revival  of  the  old  statute,  and 
said:  "Can  you  not  trust  the  juries  of  that  country?  If  you  have 
not  a  party  among  two  millions  of  people,  you  must  either  change 
your  plan  of  government  or  renounce  the  colonies  forever." 


SOME  REFERENCE  TO  CONDITIONS  IN  ENGLAND 
PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION  AND  TO  THE  POSI 
TION  TAKEN  BY  PROMINENT  ENGLISHMEN. 


BOOKS  IN  USE  MORE  THAN  TWENTY  YEARS 

AGO 


GROUP  THREE 

Text-books 

which 

deal  fully  with  the  grievances  of  the  colonists, 
make  no  reference  to  general  political  conditions  in  England 

prior  to  the  American  Revolution, 

but  make,  at  least,   favorable  mention 

of  several  prominent  Englishmen. 


From  Chambers'    (Hansell's)   Higher  History  of  the 
United  States 

[9] 

P.  216:  One  year  after  its  passage  the  Stamp  Act  was  repealed 
(March  18,  1766),  to  the  great  joy  of  America. 

P.  217 :  It  was  the  great  ambition  of  this  king  to  increase  his 
power — to  be  a  king  in  fact  as  well  as  in  name.  With  this  ambition 
went  a  dense  ignorance  of  the  character  of  his  American  subjects, 
and  a  stubborn  persistency  in  adhering  to  a  policy  once  formed. 

Side  Note :  The  setting  aside  of  the  rights  of  the  English  in 
America  would  have  prepared  the  way  for  the  revoking  of  dearly- 
bought  civil  privileges  of  the  English  in  England.  Many  wise 
statesmen  recognized  this,  and  there  arose  friends  of  America,  such 
as  Pitt,  Burke,  Barre  and  others  in  Parliament,  who  opposed  all 
oppressive  measures.  But  the  measures  of  the  king,  shaped  by  his 
ministry,  generally  prevailed. 


NO  PICTURE  OF  POLITICAL  CONDITIONS  IN 
ENGLAND  PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION 
AND  LITTLE  REFERENCE  TO  THE 
SERVICES  RENDERED  THE  COL 
ONISTS  BY  PROMINENT 
ENGLISHMEN. 

55 


56  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Berry's  History  of  the  United  States 
[10] 

P.  ioi  :  British  merchants  injured  by  the  loss  of  American  trade 
petitioned  Parliament  to  repeal  the  act.  William  Pitt,  the  Earl  of 
Chatham,  Burke,  and  Lord  Camden  earnestly  plead  the  cause  of 
the  colonies. 

P.  103 :  Early  in  1775,  Lord  Chatham  introduced  a  bill  in  Parlia 
ment  which  he  hoped  would  bring  about  a  reconciliation,  but  he 
failed;  for  the  Parliament  would  listen  to  nothing  but  the  absolute 
submission  of  the  colonies. 


THESE  ARE  THE  ONLY  REFERENCES  TO  CONDI 
TIONS  IN  ENGLAND  PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLU 
TION  AND  TO  PROMINENT  ENGLISHMEN 
WHO  FAVORED  THE  COLONISTS. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  57 

From  Field's  A  Grammar  School  History  of  the 
United  States 


P.  131  :  After  the  Americans  refused  to  buy  British  goods,  the 
merchants  of  England  complained  that  they  were  losing  heavily, 
and  asked  that  the  commerce  between  the  two  countries  might  be 
reopened.  William  Pitt  and  Edmund  Burke,  men  of  great  influence 
and  friends  of  the  American  cause,  urged  Parliament  to  repeal  the 
Stamp  Act.  This,  Parliament  did  one  year  after  passing  the  act. 

P.  133  :  A  bill  was  passed  to  remove  all  the  taxes,  except  that  of 
three  pence  (six  cents)  per  pound  on  tea,  which  was  retained  to 
show  the  colonies  that  England  had  the  right  to  tax  them. 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  CONDITIONS  IN  ENGLAND 
PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION  AND  NO  FURTHER 
REFERENCE  TO  THE  PROMINENT  ENGLISH 
MEN  WHO  LABORED  IN  THE  INTERESTS 
OF  THE  COLONIES. 


58  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Fisher's  Outlines  of  Universal  History 

[15] 

P.  485 :  The  colonists  all  acknowledged  the  authority  of  King 
and  Parliament,  but  they  felt  that  they  had  brought  with  them  across 
the  ocean  the  rights  of  Englishmen. 

.  .  .  William  Pitt,  in  the  House  of  Commons,  eulogized  the 
spirit  of  the  colonies.  The  Stamp  Act  was  repealed. 

P.  508 :  Edmund  Burke,  however,  the  great  philosophical  states 
man,  who  had  defended  the  cause  of  freedom  in  the  American 
war.  . 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  THE  CONDITIONS  IN  ENG 
LAND  PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION,  NOR 
ANY  OTHER  REFERENCE  TO  THE 
PROMINENT  ENGLISHMEN  WHO 
ESPOUSED  THE  CAUSE  OF 
THE  COLONIES. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  59 

From  Goodrich's  Pictorial  History  of  the   United  States 

[18] 

P.  165 :  As  will  be  hereafter  seen,  the  chief  ground  of  opposition 
to  these  measures  was,  that  the  colonies  were  not  represented  by 
any  members  of  their  own  country,  in  the  British  government,  and 
that  it  was  alike  unjust,  dangerous,  and  contrary  to  the  British 
constitution  for  any  people  to  be  taxed  by  the  government  in  which 
they  had  no  representatives  to  watch  over  and  vindicate  their 
rights  and  interests. 

P.  167:  Though  the  Act  passed  the  House  of  Lords  in  Great 
Britain  unanimously,  it  met  with  opposition  in  the  House  of  Com 
mons.  Colonel  Barre,  in  particular,  spoke  against  it  with  great 
warmth  and  eloquence.  And  when  the  question  was  put,  whether 
or  not  it  should  be  (passed,  fifty  members  out  of  three  hundred 
were  against  it. 

P.  171 :  The  general  assemblies  of  Massachusetts  and  Virginia 
went  so  far  as  to  vote  thanks  to  Mr.  Pitt  and  the  other  members 
of  Parliament  who  had  done  so  much  to  effect  a  repeal;  and  in 
Virginia  it  was  proposed  to  erect  a  statue  to  the  king.  Mr.  Pitt, 
Colonel  Barre,  and  Edmund  Burke,  who  had  favored  our  cause  in 
Parliament,  received  the  thanks  of  the  people,  .  .  . 

P.  177:  There  is  no  doubt  that  in  most  of  these  transactions  the 
mob  were  in  the  wrong;  the  source  of  the  mischief  lay,  however,  in 
the  fact  that  the  British  government  insisted  upon  keeping  an  army 
among  a  people  outraged  by  a  series  of  unjust  and  irritating  laws. 
This  conduct  showed  that  the  king  and  parliament  of  Great  Britain 
intended  to  compel  the  colonists  to  submission  by  force  of  arms,  and 
not  to  govern  them  by  fair  and  proper  legislation. 


NO  FURTHER  REFERENCE  TO  THE  CONDITIONS 

IN  ENGLAND  PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION, 

NOR  TO  THE  SERVICES  RENDERED  THE 

COLONISTS  BY  PROMINENT 

ENGLISHMEN. 


60  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Goodrich's  History  of  the  United  States,   (Revised 
by  Seavey). 

[19] 

P.  101 :  The  attempt  of  England  to  impose  taxes  upon  her  Amer 
ican  colonies  without  their  consent,  led  to  a  revolution  which  re 
sulted  in  their  independence,  and  the  establishment  of  a  republic 
under  the  name  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

P.  103,  FOOT  NOTE,  2:  The  Stamp  Act  passed  parliament  by  an 
overwhelming  majority.  Yet  America  found  some  friends  in  that 
body.  (Here  follows  the  celebrated  answer  of  Colonel  Barre  to  the 
speech  of  Charles  Townshend.) 

P.  105 :  Mr.  Pitt  and  Edmund  Burke  were  among  the  foremost 
advocates  of  repeal,  which  was  at  length  carried  (1766),  but  only 
by  accompanying  the  repealing  act  by  a  declaratory  act,  asserting 
the  right  of  Parliament  "to  bind  the  colonies  in  all  cases  whatso 
ever". 

The  joy  of  the  colonies  at  the  repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act  was  un 
bounded.  They  manifested,  in  various  ways  their  gratitude  to  Pitt 
and  others,  who,  in  Parliament,  had  advocated  the  cause  of  Amer 
ica  ... 

FOOT  NOTE:  Scarcely  less  lively  was  the  feeling  of  satisfaction 
among  the  friends  of  America  in  London.  Regarding  Mr.  Pitt  as 
chiefly  instrumental  in  the  repeal,  they  crowded  about  the  door  of 
the  House  of  Commons  to  receive  him ;  and  in  the  language  of 
Burke,  "They  jumped  upon  him  like  children  on  a  long-absent 
father.  They  clung  about  him  as  captives  about  their  redeemer. 
All  England  joined  in  his  applause."  London  warehouses  were 
illuminated,  and  flags  were  displayed  from  the  shipping  in  the 
Thames. 

P.  no:  Parliament,  early  in  1775,  rejected  a  conciliatory  bill  in 
troduced  by  Lord  Chatham,  and  passed  an  act  to  restrain  the  trade 
of  the  New  England  provinces,  .  .  . 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  CONDITIONS  IN  ENGLAND 
PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  61 

From  Holmes'  New  School  History  of  the  United  States 

[21] 

P.  92,  FOOT  NOTE:  Edmund  Burke  (1728-1797)  was  a  great  English 
statesman,  and  the  most  brilliant  of  English  orators.  He  was  a 
member  of  Parliament  from  1766  to  1793.  In  1771  he  was  appointed 
agent  for  the  colony  of  New  York.  He  was  the  friend  of  Franklin, 
and  always  favored  the  interests  of  the  American  colonies. 

P.  95,  FOOT  NOTE:  In  the  debates  in  the  British  Parliament  on 
this  bill,  (Stamp  Act)  Charles  Townshend  remarked,  that  the  Amer 
icans  were  "children  planted  by  our  care,  and  nourished  by  our 
indulgence."  To  this  Colonel  Barre  made  the  indignant  reply:  "They 
planted  by  your  care !  No — your  oppression  planted  them  in  Amer 
ica  | they  fled  from  your  tyranny  to  a  then  uncultivated  and  in 
hospitable  wilderness,  exposed  to  all  the  hardships  to  which  human 
nature  is  liable.  They  nourished  by  your  indulgence!  No — they 
grew  by  your  neglect;  your  care  of  them  was  displayed,  as  soon 
as  you  began  to  care  about  them,  in  sending  persons  to  rule  them 
who  were  the  deputies  of  deputies  of  ministers." 

P.  104:  The  British  ministry  were  confident  that  the  colonies  would 
soon  submit,  or  be  subdued.  They  felt  only  contempt  for  the 
courage,  the  steadiness,  and  the  discipline  of  the  colonial  militia. 

FOOT  NOTE  :  It  was  contemptuously  said  in  England,  that  the  sight 
of  a  grenadier's  cap  would  be  sufficient  to  put  an  American  army 
to  flight. 

P.  128:  Proposals  of  conciliation,  supported  in  Parliament  by  the 
Duke  of  Richmond,  were  rejected,  because  they  did  not  concede  in 
dependence.  When  Richmond  moved  his  resolutions,  they  were 
opposed  by  Chatham,  in  Chatham's  last  speech.  The  old  earl, 
recently  risen  from  a  sick-bed,  feeble  with  age  and  tottering  with 
gout,  rested  on  his  son  and  his  son-in-law,  and  denounced  the  pro 
posal  in  the  House  of  Lords. 

P.  129,  FOOT  NOTE  :  In  this  speech  he  said,  "I  am  old  and  infirm ;  I 
have  one  foot,  more  than  one  foot,  in  the  grave.  I  rejoice  that  the 
grave  has  not  closed  upon  me;  that  I  am  still  able  to  vote  against 
the  dismemberment  of  this  ancient  and  most  noble  monarchy.  Let 
us  at  least  make  one  effort,  and  if  we  must  fall,  let  us  fall  like 
men !" 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  CONDITIONS  IN  ENGLAND 

PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION.     PITT  ONLY 

MENTIONED  WHEN  HE  SPOKE  AGAINST 

SEPARATION  OF  THE  COLONIES  FROM 

ENGLAND. 


62  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Montgomery's  The  Leading  Facts  of  American 
History 

[27] 

P.  149:  During  the  war,  and  for  a  long  time  before  it,  the  laws 
which  forbade  the  colonists  to  trade  with  any  country  except  Great 
Britain  had  not  been  enforced.  .  .  . 

Now,  all  this  profitable  commerce  was  to  stop.  A  new  king- 
George  III. — had  come  to  the  throne  of  England.  He  was  con 
scientious  but  narrow-minded,  obstinate,  and  at  times  crazy.  The 
new  government  was  determined  that  the  old  laws  should  be  carried 
out.  .  .  .  In  Boston  and  other  large  towns  the  king's  officers  began 
to  break  into  men's  houses  and  shops  and  search  them  for  smuggled 
goods. 

FOOT  NOTE:  The  officers  did  this  by  general  warrants  called  "Writs 
of  Assistance".  These  were  search-warrants  in  blank. 

P.  150:  It  began  to  look  as  though  the  king  and  his  "friends" 
meant  to  ruin  every  merchant  and  ship-builder  in  the  country. 

P.  151 :  The  best  men  in  Parliament— such  men  as  William  Pitt 
and  Edmund  Burke — took  the  side  of  the  colonists.  Burke  said  that 
if  the  king  undertook  to  tax  the  Americans  against  their  will  he 
would  find  it  as  hard  a  job  as  the  farmer  did  who  tried  to  shear  a 
wolf  instead  of  a  sheep. 

FOOT  NOTE  :  Pitt  thought  it  was  not  right  to  tax  America ;  Burke 
thought  it  was  not  wise  to  do  so. 

P.  152:  When  news  of  these  vigorous  proceedings  reached  Lon 
don,  William  Pitt  said  in  Parliament,  "In  m'y  opinion,  this  kingdom 
has  no  right  to  lay  a  tax  on  the  colonies  ...  I  rejoice  that 
America  has  resisted".  The  Stamp  Act  was  speedily  repealed 
(1766),  much  to  the  delight  of  many  people  in  England  as  well  as 
of  the  colonists. 

P.  153:  But  the  Americans  were  not  caught  in  this  trap.  They 
saw  that  George  III.  was  endeavoring  to  exalt  his  own  power  and 
deprive  them  of  theirs,  and  that  the  tax  was  for  that  purpose. 

P.  154:  Parliament  again  made  the  mistake  of  supposing  that  our 
forefathers  did  not  mean  what  they  said. 

P.  156,  FOOT  NOTE:  Yet  this  same  Congress  (October  26,  1774) 
sent  a  petition  to  the  king,  imploring  him,  "as  the  loving  father  of 
your  whole  people",  to  redress  their  wrongs.  They  might  as  well 
have  petitioned  the  "Great  Stone  Face"  in  the  White  Mountains  of 
New  Hampshire. 

NO    PICTURE    OF    POLITICAL    CONDITIONS    IN 

ENGLAND  PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION  AND 

LITTLE  REFERENCE  TO  THE  SERVICES  OF 

PROMINENT  ENGLISHMEN. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  63 

From  Sheldon's  American  History,  (Mary  Sheldon  Barnes' 
Studies  in  American  History) 

[34] 

P.  134:  "In  an  American  tax,  what  do  we  do?  We — give  and 
grant  to  your  Majesty — What?  Our  own  property?  No.  We  give 
and  grant  to  your  Majesty  the  property  of  your  Majesty's  com 
mons  in  America.  .  .  .  The  gentleman  tells  us  America  is  obsti 
nate;  America  is  almost  in  open  rebellion.  I  rejoice  that  America 
has  resisted." — Pitt,  to  the  House  of  Commons. 

P.  135:  Barre,  who  had  been  the  friend  and  companion  of  Wolfe 
at  Quebec,  sprang  to  his  feet  and  replied: 

"  'Children  planted  by  your  care !'  No !  your  oppression  planted 
them  in  America;  .  .  .  they  nourished  by  your  indulgence!  they 
grew  by  your  neglect  of  them:  as  soon  as  you  began  to  care  about 
them,  that  care  was  exercised  in  sending  persons  to  rule  over  them 
.  .  .  whose  behaviour,  on  many  occasions,  has  caused  the  blood  of 
those  sons  of  liberty  to  recoil  within  them.  They  protected  by 
your  arms !  they  have  nobly  taken  up  arms  in  your  defence.  .  .  . 
And  the  same  spirit  which  actuated  that  people  at  first,  will  con 
tinue  with  them  still." 

But  in  spite  of  Barre's  gallant  speech,  the  Parliament  voted  that 
the  Stamp  Act  should  become  law. 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  POLITICAL  CONDITIONS  IN 
ENGLAND  PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION. 


64  THE  AMERICAN  DEVOLUTION 

From  Swinton's  Condensed  United  States  School  History 

[36] 

P.  114:  A  very  serious  question  now  was,  "Would  Great  Britain 
force  the  Colonies  to  obedience?"  It  did  not;  for,  at  the  next 
meeting  of  Parliament,  the  STAMP  ACT  was  repealed. 

There  were  several  reasons  for  this.  First,  there  were  some 
noble  men  in  England  who  took  sides  with  America,  for  they  be 
lieved  America  was  right.  Secondly,  British  merchants,  finding  them 
selves  severely  punished  by  the  Americans  not  importing  any  British 
goods,  petitioned  for  the  repeal. 

Parliament  repealed  the  Stamp  Act,  February  22,  1766.  Those 
great  men,  William  Pitt  and  Edmund  Burke,  then  both  members 
of  Parliament,  were  advocates  of  the  repeal. 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  CONDITIONS  IN  ENGLAND 

PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION,  BUT  AT  LEAST 

MENTION  OF  "THE  NOBLE  MEN  IN 

ENGLAND". 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  65 

From  Swinton's  School  History  of  the  United  States 
[38] 

P.  148 :  The  attachment  of  the  American  colonies  to  the  "mother 
country"  was  never  stronger  than  at  the  close  of  the  French  War 
The  colonists  were  proud  of  being  descended  from  British  ancestors 
and  gloried  in  sharing  the  rights  of  subjects  of  England.  The  trials 
and  triumphs  of  the  French  wars  made  colonists  and  Englishmen 
feel  more  than  ever  like  brothers.  .  . 

How  was  it  that  the  colonies  began  a  revolt  which  resulted  in 
their  independence?  The  usual  answer  is  that  the  attempt  of  Eng 
land  to  impose  taxes  upon  the  American  colonies  without  their  con 
sent  was  the  cause  of  the  Revolutionary  War. 

This  is  true  in  part  only.  The  imposition  of  taxes  was  the  occa 
sion  of  the  revolt  of  the  colonies ;  but  its  cause  was  that  the  whole 
history  of  the  American  colonies  meant  independence  Providence 
so  designed  it. 

P  149 :  The  colonists  were,  from  an  early  date,  unwilling  to  be 
taxed.  Various  colonial  legislatures  had  denied  England's  right  to 
tax  the  colonies. 

P.  153 :  Parliament  repealed  the  Stamp  Act,  March  18,  1766.  Two 
great  men,  William  Pitt  and  Edmund  Burke,  then  both  members 
of  Parliament,  were  advocates  of  the  repeal. 

FOOT  NOTE:  Pitt  agreed  with  the  colonists  that  there  should  be 

No  taxation  without  representation".     Burke's  argument  was  the 

common-sense  one.     He  declared  that  it  was  worse  than   folly  to 

throw   away   the  good-will   of   three   million    subjects   in   America 

merely  for  the  chance  of  a  small  increase  of  revenue. 

W-  I5T7'  ^°OT  N°IE:  LatC  in/December  of  1774,  Franklin,  then  liv 
ing  in  London  as  the  agent  of  the  colonies,  called  by  appointment  on 
William  Pitt,  Lord  Chatham  "to  obtain  his  sentiments"  upon  this 
declaration.  Franklin  says:  "He  (Lord  Chatham)  received  me  with 
an  affectionate  kind  of  respect  that  was  extremely  engaging-  but 
the  opinion  he  expressed  of  the  Congress  was  still  more  so  They 
5?  .  uu'  he,sai.d>  with  so  much  temper,  moderation,  and  wisdom, 
that  he  thought  it  the  most  honorable  assembly  of  statesmen  since 
those  of  the  ancient  Greeks  and  Romans  in  the  most  virtuous  times  " 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  POLITICAL  CONDITIONS  IN 
ENGLAND  PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION. 


BOOKS  IN  USE  MORE  THAN  TWENTY  YEARS 

AGO 


GROUP  FOUR 

Text-books 

which 

deal  fully  with  the  grievances  of  the  colonists, 

make  no  reference  to  general  political  conditions  in  England 

prior  to  the  American  Revolution, 

but  mention,  at  least,  PITT. 


From  Anderson's  Popular  School  History  of  the 
United  States 

[i] 

P.  127:  The  repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act  caused  great  rejoicing 
throughout  the  colonies.  Virginia  and  New  York  voted  statues  to 
the  king.  New  York  also  voted  a  statue  to  Pitt,  who,  in  Parliament, 
had  declared  "that  the  kingdom  had  no  right  to  levy  a  tax  on  the 
colonies."  A  second  statue  was  voted  to  Pitt  by  Maryland. 


NO  OTHER  REFERENCE  TO  MEN  OR  CONDI 
TIONS   CONNECTED  WITH   THE   ENG 
LISH  SIDE  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY. 

69 


70  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Anderson's  A  New  Grammar  School  History 
of  the  United  States 

[2] 

P.  145:  Great  was  the  joy  of  the  colonists  when  they  heard  the 
good  news.  They  lighted  bonfires,  raised  banners,  fired  guns,  rang 
bells,  and,  in  their  gratitude,  voted  statues  to  England's  great  states 
man,  William  Pitt,  who  had  boldly  said  in  parliament  that  England 
had  no  right  to  tax  America. 

P.  181:  In  the  British  Parliament,  Lord  Chatham  said:  "We  can 
not  conquer  America.  In  three  campaigns  we  have  done  nothing. 
We  may  traffic  and  barter  with  every  little  German  prince  that 
sells  his  subjects;  our  efforts  are  forever  in  vain.  If  I  were  an 
American  as  I  am  an  Englishman,  while  a  foreign  troop  was  landed 
in  my  country  I  never  would  lay  down  my  arms;  never,  never, 
never." 


THESE  ARE  THE  ONLY  REFERENCES  TO  MEN 

OR  CONDITIONS  CONNECTED  WITH  THE 

ENGLISH  SIDE  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  71 

From  Anderson's  Junior  Class  History  of  the 
United  States 

[3] 

P.  92,  FOOT  NOTE:  William  Pitt,  first  Earl  of  Chatham,  was  born 
at  Westminster,  England,  in  1708.  At  the  beginning  of  the  Amer 
ican  Revolution  he  was  opposed  to  the  measures  of  the  British  min 
istry  in  the  American  colonies;  but,  at  the  close  of  a  speech,  made 
in  1778  in  Parliament,  in  which  he  spoke  against  a  motion  to  ac 
knowledge  the  independence  of  America,  he  fell  in  an  apoplectic 
fit,  and  was  borne  home,  where  he  died  in  a  few  weeks  afterward. 

P.  105 :  The  English  government,  therefore,  soon  after  the  close 
of  the  war,  set  up  a  claim  that,  as  it  had  been  waged  on  behalf  of  the 
colonies,  they  should  bear  a  part  of  the  burden.  Accordingly,  a 
law  was  passed  in  1765  called  the  Stamp  Act. 

P.  106 :  Andrew  Oliver,  who  had  been  appointed  the  agent  for  the 
sale  of  the  hated  stamped  paper,  was  hung  in  effigy;  his  house  was 
torn  down,  and  he  was  obliged  to  resign  the  odious  office. 

P.  107:  ...  a  large  body  of  soldiers  were  sent  to  keep  them  in 
subjection.  The  presence  of  these  hirelings  caused  constant  affrays, 

P.  no:  They  did  not  desire  a  conflict  with  the  "mother  country", 
but  were  prepared  for  it,  should  it  prove  unavoidable. 


NO  MENTION  OF  POLITICAL  CONDITIONS  IN 

ENGLAND.     NO  MENTION  OF  THE  GREAT 

EFFORTS  MADE  ON  BEHALF  OF  THE 

COLONISTS  BY  MANY  PROMINENT 

ENGLISHMEN. 


72  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Magill's  History  of  Virginia 


P.  169:  When  the  news  of  this  opposition  (to  the  stamp  tax) 
reached  England,  it  created  a  great  excitement  in  Parliament. 
Many  members  thought  America  was  perfectly  right  in  her  course, 
and  one  of  them,  William  Pitt,  rose  from  a  sick  bed  to  make  a 
speech  in  behalf  of  the  Americans.  "We  are  told",  said  he,  "that 
America  is  obstinate,  America  is  in  open  rebellion.  I  rejoice  that 
America  has  resisted  oppression;  three  millions  of  people  so  dead 
to  all  feelings  of  liberty  as  voluntarily  to  submit  to  be  slaves  would 
have  been  fit  instruments  to  make  slaves  of  all  the  rest." 


NO  OTHER  REFERENCE  TO  ANYTHING  ENG 
LISHMEN  DID  IN  THE  INTEREST  OF  THE 
COLONIES. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  73 

From  Quackenbos'  (Appleton's)  School  History  of  the 

World 

[29] 

P.  390 :  On  the  ground  that  the  recent  French  and  Indian  War 
had  been  carried  on  for  the  protection  of  the  American  colonies, 
the  English  government  resolved  that  the  latter  should  share  the 
expenses  incurred.  But  the  Americans  remembered  that  much  of 
their  success  was  due  to  their  own  brave  troops,  and  claimed  that 
Parliament  had  no  right  to  tax  them  unless  they  were  represented 
in  that  body.  Notwithstanding,  in  1765  the  Stamp  Act  was  passed, 
requiring  stamps  of  different  values  to  be  affixed  to  all  deeds,  notes, 
newspapers,  etc.  Upon  this  the  indignation  of  the  colonies  blazed 
forth,  and  resistance  was  determined  upon ;  but  the  obnoxious  act 
was  repealed  in  1766. 

Yet  harmony  was  not  restored,  for  other  taxes  were  imposed, 
and  British  regiments  were  sent  from  England  to  enforce  the  sub 
mission  of  the  people.  The  king  regarded  the  Americans  as  "rebels," 
and  Pitt,  their  champion,  now  Earl  of  Chatham,  as  "a  trumpet  of 
sedition".  "Four  regiments",  wrote  George,  "will  bring  them  to 
their  senses;  they  will  only  be  lions  while  we  are  lambs."  Vainly 
Chatham  strove  to  avert  the  conflict;  his  advice  was, rejected,  and 
in  1775  the  eight  years'  war  of  the  American  Revolution  began. 


NO  OTHER  REFERENCE  TO  PROMINENT  ENG 
LISHMEN  WHO  SIDED  WITH  THE  COLONISTS, 
NOR  TO  THE  POLITICAL  CONDITIONS  IN 
ENGLAND  PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION. 


74  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Ridpath's  History  of  the  United  States 


P.  179:  The  Most  general  cause  of  the  Revolution  was  THE 
RIGHT  OF  ARBITRARY  GOVERNMENT,  claimed  by  Great 
Britain  and  denied  by  the  colonies.  .  .  . 

First  of  these  was  the  influence  of  France,  inciting  the  colonies  to 
rebel.  .  .  . 

Another  cause  was  the  natural  disposition  of  the  colonists.  They 
were  republicans  in  politics.  The  people  of  England  were  mon 
archists.  The  colonists  had  never  seen  a  king. 

P.  180:  Another  cause  of  the  revolution  was  the  personal  char 
acter  of  the  king.  George  III.  was  one  of  the  worst  rulers  of  modern 
times.  He  was  a  stubborn,  thick-headed  man,  who  had  no  true 
notion  of  human  rights.  His-«ittwster3-^wete>  4or  thc4*K>&t  part,  mc.iv 
•ill  likt  U7> 


P.  183:  The  colonists  had  their  friends  in  England.  Eminent 
statesmen  espoused  the  cause  of  America.  In  the  House  of  Com 
mons  Mr.  Pitt  delivered  a  powerful  address.  "You  have",  said  he, 
"no  right  to  tax  America.  I  rejoice  that  America  has  resisted." 
On  the  i8th  of  March,  1766,  the  Stamp  Act  was  formally  repealed. 
But  at  the  same  time  a  resolution  was  added  declaring  that  Parlia 
ment  had  the  right  to  bind  the  colonies  in  all  cases  whatsoever. 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  CONDITIONS  IN  ENGLAND 

PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION,  NOR  TO  THE 

SERVICES  RENDERED  THE  COLONISTS 

BY  PROMINENT  ENGLISHMEN, 

EXCEPT  THIS  MENTION  OF 

PITT. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  75 

From  Thalheimer's  Eclectic  History  of  the  United  States 

[No.  39] 

P.  123 :  The  colonists  insisted  upon  their  privilege  as  Englishmen, — 
that  as  they  were  not  represented  in  the  British  'Parliament,  they 
could  not  be  taxed  by  it,  but  only  by  their  own  assemblies,  which 
were  to  them  precisely  what  the  House  of  Commons  was  to  their 
countrymen  at  home;  and  some  of  the  best  and  wisest  men  in  Eng 
land  declared  that  they  were  right. 

P.  124:  Though  hard  things  must  be  said  of  the  British  govern 
ment  as  it  was  then  administered,  we  ought  never  to  forget  that 
our  fathers  had  the  spirit  and  ability  to  repel  English  injustice 
precisely  because  they  had  been  trained  to  the  rights  and  duties  of 
Englishmen.  .  .  . 

The  throne  of  Great  Britain  was  now  occupied  by  George  III.,  a 
narrow-minded  and  obstinate  young  king,  who  had  succeeded  his 
grandfather  in  1760.  He  hated  Pitt,  the  friend  of  America,  and  his 
ruling  purpose  was  to  exalt  kingly  authority  at  the  expense  of  all 
popular  rights. 

P.  127 :  Surprised  at  the  firmness  of  the  colonists,  Parliament,  in 
1773,  repealed  all  taxes  excepting  that  of  three  pence  a  pound  upon 
tea,  .  .  . 

P.  128:  In  England  Mr.  Pitt,  now  the  Earl  of  Chatham,  urged 
Parliament  to  desist  from  the  cruel  injustice  of  oppressing  three  mil 
lions  of  people  for  the  act  of  thirty  or  forty. 

P.  130:  (NOTES).  William  Pitt  (b.  1708,  d.  1778),  first  Earl  of 
Chatham,  was  America's  warmest  champion  in  England  during  the 
troubles  that  led  to  the  Revolution.  He  had  the  reputation  of  being 
"one  of  the  most  powerful,  vigilant,  and  patriotic  opponents  in  Par 
liament  of  unconstitutional  and  unwise  measures."  He  opposed  the 
stamp  act  of  1766,  and  from  1775  to  1777  his  voice  rang  warning 
and  prophecy  to  the  British  ministry  in  their  oppression  of  the  col 
onies.  In  1778  he  rose  from  a  sick-bed  to  speak  in  the  House  of 
Lords  against  a  motion  to  acknowledge  the  independence  of  America. 
At  the  close  of  his  speech,  he  fell  in  an  apoplectic  fit  from  which  he 
never  recovered. 

P.  133 :  The  Earl  of  Chatham  declared  in  Parliament  that  no  body 
of  men  ever  surpassed  the  first  American  Congress  in  "solidity 
of  reasoning,  force  of  sagacity,  and  wisdom  of  conclusion";  and  to 
Franklin  he  remarked,  that  the  success  of  the  American  cause  was 
the  last  hope  of  liberty  for  England.  The  debates  in  Parliament 
proved  to  the  colonists  that  their  contest  was  with  the  king  and 
ministry^  not  with  the  people  of  England.  Several  Englishmen  of 
rank  resigned  their  places  in  the  army  and  government  rather  than 
fight  against  America. 

NO  PICTURE  OF  POLITICAL  CONDITIONS  IN 
ENGLAND  PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION. 


BOOKS  IN  USE  MORE  THAN  TWENTY  YEARS 

AGO 


GROUP  FIVE 

Text-books 

which 

deal  fully  with  the  grievances  of  the  colonists, 
make  no  reference  to  general  political  conditions   in   England 

prior  to  the  American  Revolution, 

nor  to  any  prominent  Englishmen  who  devoted  themselves  to 
the  cause  of  the  Americans. 


From  Armstrong's  Primer  of  United  States  History 

[4] 

P.  38:  .  .  .  and  the  English  Parliament  thought  the  colonies 
ought  to  help  pay  it.  This  they  were  quite  willing  to  do,  but  wanted 
to  do  it  in  their  own  way.  .  .  .  But  William  Pitt  was  not  now 
prime  minister,  and  those  in  power  were  not  as  friendly  to  America 
as  he  had  been ;  and  besides,  the  king,  George  III.,  was  very  stubborn, 
and  cared  not  nearly  as  much  for  the  good  of  the  colonies  as  for  his 
own  selfish  plans. 

P.  39 :  When  the  English  Parliament  saw  how  strongly  the  people 
in  both  countries  felt  about  the  Stamp  Act,  it  was  repealed. 

In  1773  all  taxes  were  withdrawn  except  that  on  tea,  and  that 
was  reduced  to  a  small  sum,  the  ministers  thinking  that  the  people 
would  be  content. 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  THE  CONDITIONS  IN  ENG 
LAND  PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION,  NOR  TO 
THE  PROMINENT  ENGLISHMEN  WHO 
LABORED  IN  THE  INTEREST  OF 
THE  COLONIES. 

79 


80  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Barnes's  Primary  History  of  the  United  States 


P.  90  :  Origin  of  the  Trouble.  While  they  were  perfectly  will 
ing  to  tax  themselves  for  England,  they  denied  her  right  to  tax 
them,  because  she  would  not  allow  them  to  be  represented  in  the 
British  Parliament,  where  the  tax  laws  were  made.  In  this  the 
colonists  were  only  insisting  on  their  rights  as  Englishmen.  The 
British  would  not  listen  to  this  reasonable  argument,  but  continued 
to  treat  the  Americans  as  though  they  had  no  rights  whatever. 

The  Stamp  Act.  —  In  1765,  a  law  called  the  Stamp  Act  was  passed. 
It  required  the  Americans  to  buy  British  tax-stamps,  and  put  them 
on  all  their  deeds,  bonds,  and  notes,  as  well  as  upon  their  newspapers 
and  almanacs.  This  was  more  than  the  Americans  would  endure. 

They,  therefore,  mobbed  the  men  who  were  sent  over  from  Eng 
land  to  sell  the  stamps,  and  resolved  to  resist  not  only  this  law,  but 
all  other  unjust  laws.  The  day  the  stamps  arrived  in  Boston,  so 
profound  was  the  sorrow  of  the  people,  the  church  bells  were  tolled, 
minute-guns  were  fired,  and  the  vessels  in  the  harbor  hung  their 
flags  at  half-mast.  The  people  in  every  colony  now  pledged  them 
selves  not  to  use  British  goods  of  any  kind,  and  manufactures  soon 
started  up  in  spite  of  the  laws  forbidding  them. 

A  Congress  was  held  in  New  York  to  declare  the  rights  of  the 
colonies,  and  societies  called  Sons  of  Liberty,  were  formed  to 
resist  their  wrongs.  From  Massachusetts  to  Carolina,  the  people 
were  full  of  indignation.  The  British  Government,  seeing  the  de 
termined  opposition  of  the  colonists,  repealed  the  Stamp  Act  the 
following  year  (1766). 

This,  however,  did  not  make  matters  better,  for  Great  Britain  still 
claimed  the  right  to  tax  the  Americans,  and  it  was  this  claim  alone 
which  the  Americans  were  resisting.  They  did  not  care  for  the 
stamp  tax  any  more  than  they  cared  for  any  other,  but  they  denied 
the  right  of  the  British  government  to  tax  them  at  all,  unless  they 
had  a  voice  in  making  British  laws. 

When,  therefore,  the  Stamp  Act  was  repealed,  and,  instead  of 
it,  taxes  were  laid  on  tea,  glass,  paints,  and  other  articles  brought 
into  the  country,  the  Americans  resisted  as  stoutly  as  ever.  Sol 
diers  were  then  sent  over  from  England  to  compel  them  to  obe 
dience.  .  .  . 

(Then  follow  paragraphs  on  The  Mutiny  Act,  The  Boston  Mas 
sacre,  The  Tea  Tax,  etc.) 


NO  ATTEMPT  MADE  TO  SHOW  THAT  MANY 
PROMINENT  ENGLISHMEN  TOOK  AN  AT 
TITUDE  DISTINCTLY  FAVORING 
THE  COLONISTS. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  81 

From  A  Brief  History  of  the   United  States  by  Steele, 
(Barnes  Historical  Series.) 

[6] 

P.  ioi :  Revolutionary  War.  Remote  Causes. — England  treated 
the  settlers  as  an  inferior  class  of  people.  Her  intention  was  to 
make  and  keep  the  colonies  dependent.  The  laws  were  framed  to 
favor  the  English  manufacturer  and  merchant  at  the  expense  of  the 
colonist.  The  Navigation  Acts  compelled  the  American  farmer  to 
send  his  products  across  the  ocean  to  England,  and  to  buy  his  goods 
in  British  markets.  American  manufactures  were  prohibited.  Iron 
works  were  denounced  as  "common  nuisances."  Even  William  Pitt, 
the  friend  of  America,  declared  that  she  had  no  right  to  manu 
facture  even  a  nail  for  a  horseshoe,  except  by  permission  of  Parlia 
ment. 

The  Direct  Cause  was  an  attempt  to  tax  the  colonies  in  order  to 
raise  money  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  recent  war.  As  the  col 
onists  were  not  represented  in  Parliament,  they  resisted  this  measure, 
declaring  that  TAXATION  WITHOUT  REPRESENTATION  IS 
TYRANNY.  The  British  government,  however,  was  obstinate,  and 
began  first  to  enforce  the  odious  laws  against  trade.  Smuggling  had 
become  very  common,  and  the  English  officers  were  granted 

Writs  of  Assistance,  as  they  were  called,  or  warrants  authorizing 
them  to  search  for  smuggled  goods.  Under  this  pretext,  any  petty 
custom-house  official  could  enter  a  man's  house  or  store  at  his 
pleasure.  The  colonists  believed  that  "every  man's  house  is  his 
castle",  and  resisted  such  search  as  a  violation  of  their  rights. 

The  Stamp  Act  (1765),  which  ordered  that  stamps  bought  of  the 
British  government,  should  be  put  on  all  legal  documents,  news 
papers,  pamphlets,  etc.,  thoroughly  aroused  the  colonists.  The 
houses  of  British  officials  were  mobbed.  Prominent  loyalists  were 
hung  in  effigy.  Stamps  were  seized.  The  agents  were  forced  to 
resign.  People  agreed  not  to  use  any  article  of  British  manufacture. 
Associations,  called  "Sons  of  Liberty",  were  formed  to  resist  the  law. 
Delegates  from  nine  of  the  colonies  met  at  New  York  and  framed  a 
Declaration  of  Rights,  and  a  petition  to  the  king  and  Parliament. 
The  first  of  November,  appointed  for  the  law  to  go  into  effect,  was 
observed  as  a  day  of  mourning.  Bells  were  tolled,  flags  raised  at 
half-mast,  and  business  was  suspended.  Samuel  and  John  Adams, 
Patrick  Henry,  and  James  Otis,  by  their  stirring  and  patriotic 
speeches,  aroused  the  people  over  the  whole  land. 

Alarmed  by  these  demonstrations,  the  English  government  re 
pealed  the  Stamp  Act  (1766),  but  still  declared  the  right  to  tax  the 
colonies.  Soon,  new  duties  were  laid  upon  tea,  glass,  paper,  etc.,  and 
a  Board  of  Trade  was  established  at  Boston  to  act  independently  of 
colonial  assemblies. 

Mutiny  Act. — Anticipating  bitter  opposition,  troops  were  sent 
to  enforce  the  laws.  The  "Mutiny  Act",  as  it  was  called,  ordered 
that  the  colonies  should  provide  these  soldiers  with  quarters  and 
necessary  supplies.  This  evident  attempt  to  enslave  the  Americans 
aroused  burning  indignation.  To  be  taxed  was  bad  enough,  but  to 


88  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

shelter  and  feed  their  oppressors  was  unendurable.  The  New  York 
assembly,  having  refused  to  comply,  was  forbidden  to  pass  any 
legislative  acts.  The  Massachusetts  assembly  sent  a  circular  to  the 
other  colonies  urging  a  union  for  redress  of  grievances.  Parliament, 
in  the  name  of  the  king,  ordered  the  assembly  to  rescind  its  action ; 
but  it  almost  unanimously  refused.  In  the  meantime,  the  assemblies 
of  nearly  all  the  colonies  had  declared  that  Parliament  had  no  right 
to  tax  them  without  their  consent.  Thereupon,  they  were  warned  not 
to  imitate  the  disobedient  conduct  of  Massachusetts. 

Boston  Massacre. — Boston  being  considered  the  hot-bed  of  the 
rebellion,  General  Gage  was  ordered  to  send  thither  two  regiments 
of  troops.  They  entered  on  a  quiet  October  morning,  and  marched 
as  through  a  conquered  city,  with  drums  beating  and  flags  flying. 
Quarters  were  refused,  but  the  Sons  of  Liberty  allowed  a  part  to  ; 
sleep  in  Faneuil  Hall,  while  the  rest  encamped  on  the  Common.^ 
Cannon  were  planted,  sentries  posted,  and  citizens  challenged.  Fre 
quent  quarrels  took  place  between  the  people  and  the  soldiers.  One 
day  (March  5,  1770)  a  crowd  of  men  and  boys,  maddened  by  its 
presence,  insulted  the  city  guard.  A  fight  ensued,  in  which  three 
citizens  were  killed  and  eight  wounded.  The  bells  were  rung;  the 
country  people  rushed  in  to  help  the  city ;  and  it  was  with  difficulty 
that  quiet  was  restored. 

Boston  Tea  Party  (Dec.  16,  1773). — The  government,  alarmed  by 
the  turn  events  had  taken,  rescinded  the  taxes,  except  that  on  tea — 
which  was  left  to  maintain  the  principle.  An  arrangement  was  made 
whereby  tea  was  furnished  at  so  low  a  price,  that,  with  the  tax 
included,  it  was  cheaper  in  America  than  in  England.  This  subter 
fuge  exasperated  the  patriots.  They  were  fighting  for  a  great  prin 
ciple,  not  against  a  paltry  tax.  At  Charleston,  the  tea  was  stored  in 
damp  cellars,  where  it  soon  spoiled.  The  tea-ships  at  New  York  and 
Philadelphia  were  sent  home.  The  British  authorities  refused  to 
let  the  tea-ships  at  Boston  return.  Upon  this,  an  immense  public 
meeting  was  called  at  Faneuil  Hall,  and  it  was  decided  that  the  tea 
should  never  be  brought  ashore.  A  party  of  men,  disguised  as  In 
dians,  boarded  the  vessels  and  emptied  three  hundred  and  forty-two 
chests  of  tea  into  the  water. 

The  Climax  Reached. — Retaliatory  measures  were  at  once  adopted 
by  the  English  government.  General  Gage  was  appointed  Gov 
ernor  of  Massachusetts.  The  port  of  Boston  being  closed  by  act  of 
Parliament,  business  was  stopped  and  distress  ensued.  The  Virginia 
assembly  protested  against  this  measure,  and  was  dissolved  by  the 
governor.  Party  lines  were  drawn.  Those  opposed  to  royalty  were 
termed  Whigs,  and  those  supporting  it,  Tories.  Every-where  were 
repeated  the  thrilling  words  of  Patrick  Henry,  "Give  me  liberty  or 

five  me  death."  Companies  of  soldiers,  termed  "Minute  men",  were 
ormed.  The  idea  of  a  continental  union  became  popular.  Gage, 
being  alarmed,  fortified  Boston  Neck,  and  seized  powder  wherever 
he  could  find  it.  A  rumor  having  been  circulated  that  the  British 
ships  were  firing  on  Boston,  in  two  days  thirty  thousand  minute  men 
were  on  their  way  to  the  city.  A  spark  only  was  needed  to  kindle 
the  slumbering  hatred  into  the  flames  of  war. 

THE  ENGLISH  SIDE  AND  LEADING  ENGLISHMEN 

WHO  FAVORED  THE  COLONISTS  NOT 

MENTIONED. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  83 

From  Chambers'  (Harwell's)  School  History  of  the 
United  States 

[8] 

*uP'T7IIO:iIn   °irdrer  to   make   the   colonists   pay   the   expenses   of 
the   French   and   Indian   war,   different   laws   were   made   to    raise 

These  tax  laws  were  made  in  England.  English  laws  are  made 
by  men  from  different  parts  of  the  kingdom.  These  men  represent 
the  parts  they  are  from,  in  the  Parliament,  or  assembly  of  English 
law-makers. 

The  colonists  did  not  send  representatives  to  this  Parliament 
and  it  should  not  have  imposed  these  taxes,  for  TAXATION 
WITHOUT  REPRESENTATION  is  not  right.  There  were  many 
brave  men  among  the  colonists  willing  to  fight  and  die  for  what 
they  thought  to  be  right,  so  they  determined  to  resist. 


NO  PICTURE  OF  POLITICAL  CONDITIONS   IN 

ENGLAND  PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION  AND 

NO  REFERENCE  TO  THE  GREAT  SERVICES 

RENDERED  THE  CAUSE  OF  THE 

COLONISTS  BY  PROMINENT 

ENGLISHMEN. 


84  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Eggleston's  A  First  Book  in  American  History 


P.  115:  But,  as  time  went  on,  the  English  Parliament  tried  to  col 
lect  a  tax  from  the  Americans.  The  Americans  declared  that,  so 
long  as  they  elected  no  members  of  Parliament,  that  body  had  no 
right  to  tax  them  without  their  consent.  But  the  men  who  gov 
erned  in  England,  did  not  think  that  people  in  the  colonies  had  the 
same  rights  as  people  in  England,  so  they  oppressed  the  Americans 
in  many  ways.  Without  asking  consent  of  the  colonies,  they  put  a 
tax  on  all  the  tea  that  came  into  America  ;  and  when  some  of  the 
tea  got  to  Boston,  the  people  turned  Boston  Harbor  into  one  big 
tea-pot  by  pitching  the  whole  shipload  of  tea  into  the  water. 

P.  117:  But  neither  the  king  of  England  nor  the  English  Parlia 
ment  would  repeal  the  laws  which  the  Americans  disliked. 

P.  118:  The  Americans  at  first  were  fighting  only  to  get  their 
rights  as  subjects  of  England.  But  since  neither  the  King  nor  the 
Parliament  of  England  would  let  them  have  their  rights,  they  got 
tired  of  calling  themselves  Englishmen. 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  POLITICAL  CONDITIONS  IN 

ENGLAND  WHICH   CAUSED  PARLIAMENT 

TO  WORK  HAND  IN  HAND  WITH  THE 

KING,     NOR     TO     THE     SERVICES 

RENDERED  THE  COLONISTS  BY 

PROMINENT  ENGLISHMEN. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  85 

From  Eggleston's  A  History  of  the  United  States  and  Its 

People 

[12] 

P.  161 :  The  Causes  of  the  Revolution.  Long  before  the  Revo 
lution  there  was  much  dissatisfaction  in  the  colonies.  Many  of  the 
governors  sent  over  were  tyrannical  and  dishonest.  The  Ameri 
cans  did  not  like  the  transportation  of  criminals,  nor  the  action  of 
the  British  government  in  annulling  the  laws  made  to  keep  out 
slaves.  They  were  also  much  annoyed  by  English  laws,  which  pre 
vented  them  from  sending  away  woolen  goods,  hats,  and  iron-wares 
of  their  own  make,  from  one  colony  to  another.  Most  of  all,  they 
disliked  the  "navigation  laws",  the  object  of  which  was  to  compel 
them  to  do  most  of  their  trading  with  England. 

The  enforcement  of  these  unpopular  laws  was  in  the  hands  of 
customhouse  officers.  The  customhouse  officers  in  Boston,  in  1761, 
asked  the  courts  for  "writs  of  assistance",  which  would  give  them 
the  right  to  search  any  house,  at  any  time,  for  the  purpose  of  find 
ing  smuggled  goods.  This  produced  a  great  excitement,  and  made 
the  navigation  laws  still  more  unpopular.  The  trial  which  took 
place  about  these  writs  was  a  kind  of  beginning  of  the  quarrel  which 
brought  on  the  Revolution  fourteen  years  afterward. 

But  England  and  the  colonies,  while  always  carrying  on  a  family 
quarrel,  had  little  thought  of  separating.  Separation  would  prob 
ably  have  come  when  the  colonies  grew  too  large  to  be  dependent, 
but  this  might  at  least  have  been  postponed  for  two  or  three  gen 
erations  if  the  men  who  ruled  England  had  not  tried  to  tax  the 
American  colonies.  Parliament  passed,  in  1765,  what  was  known  as 
"The  Stamp  Act".  This  law  required  that  all  bills,  notes,  leases, 
and  many  other  such  documents  used  in  the  colonies,  should  be 
written  on  stamped  paper,  which  should  be  sold  by  officers  at  such 
prices  as  should  bring  a  revenue  to  the  English  government.  All 
newspapers  were  required  to  be  printed  on  stamped  paper. 

The  American  people  quickly  saw  that,  if  the  British  Parliament 
could  pass  such  an  act,  they  could  tax  America  in  any  other  way. 
The  cry  was  raised  in  all  the  colonies,  "No  taxation  without  repre 
sentation"  !  Patrick  Henry,  a  brilliant  speaker,  took  the  lead  in  the 
agitation  in  Virginia,  and  James  Otis,  an  eloquent  Boston  lawyer, 
was  the  principal  orator  in  Massachusetts.  The  rivalries  and  jeal 
ousies  between  the  various  colonies  died  out  in  the  new  patriotic 
feeling,  and  the  excitement  ran  like  a  flame  of  fire  from  New 
Hampshire  to  Georgia.  There  was  everywhere  a  call  for  union 
among  the  colonies.  .  .  . 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  THE  FACT  THAT  MANY 
ENGLISHMEN  FAVORED  THE  COLONISTS. 


86  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Ellis'  Eclectic  Primary  History  of  the  United  States 

[13] 

P.  89:  The  Cause  of  the  American  Revolution: 

1.  We  have  brought  the  history  of  the  American  colonies  down 
almost  to  the  Revolution.     Before  studying  that  period,  let  us  try 
to  learn  what  causes  brought  about  the  war  for  independence. 

2.  There  were  thirteen  colonies,  with  a  population  of  more  than 
two  millions.    The  French  and  Indian  War  had  given  the  Americans 
a  knowledge  of  military  matters,  and  had  shown  them  their  strength. 
It  had,  in  fact,  made  them  one  nation. 

3.  England  was  not  wise  in  her  treatment  of  the  colonies.     She 
wished  to  keep  them  dependent,  and  she  passed  many  oppressive  laws 
for  their  government.     She  would  not  permit  American  goods  to 
be  sent  anywhere,   except  to  Great  Britain.     She  would  not  allow 
our    forefathers   to   manufacture   any    thing.      One   of    the   leading 
British  statesmen  said  the  colonists  had  no  right  to  make  even  a 
nail  for  a  horseshoe. 

4.  Few   people   would   submit  quietly   to   such   injustice,   but   the 
Americans  were  not  yet  ready  to  rebel.    Finally,  England  determined 
that  the  colonies  should  pay  the  expenses  of  the  French  and  Indian 
War.     This  was  unjust;  but,  besides,  she  would  not  allow  them  to 
have  any  one  of  their  number  in  the  English  Parliament,  or  lawmak- 
ing  body,  to  protect  their  interests.    This  was  called  taxation  without 
representation. 

5.  George  III.  was  king  of  England.     He  was  a  narrow-minded 
ruler,    who    favored    the    severest   measures    toward    his    American 
colonies.     He  strove  to  crush  out  all  hope  of  independence  on  their 
part,  but  the  course  he  took  was  the  very  one  which  brought  about 
their  independence. 

6.  The  British  Parliament  passed  the  famous  Stamp  Act.     It  re 
quired  all  newspapers,  pamphlets,   advertisements,  and  legal   docu 
ments   to  bear  a   stamp,   bought  of   the   British  government.     The 
prices   of   the   stamps   ranged    from   three  pence   to   thirty   dollars, 
according  to  the  importance  of  the  document. 

7.  The  Americans  were  indignant.    The  houses  of  the  British  offi 
cials  were  mobbed ;  the  stamps  were  burned,  or  sent  back  to  England, 
and  the  most  violent  speeches  were  made  at  the  meetings  held  in 
every  part  of  the  country. 

8.  The  British  government  was  alarmed,  and  repealed  the  Stamp 
Act ;  but,  while  doing  so,  took  care  to  show  the  Americans  that  she 
still  claimed  the  right  to  tax  them  as  she  thought  best.     She  there 
fore  imposed  a  new  tax  on  tea,  glass,  paper,  and  painters'  materials. 

9.  The  anger  of  the  Americans   flamed  up   again.     The   mother 
country  sent  soldiers  to  America,  and  ordered  the  people  to  take  care 
of  them.    This  caused  many  fights  in  Boston,  New  York,  and  else 
where,  and  several  lives  were  lost. 


NO  INFORMATION  AS  TO  MEN  OR  CONDITIONS 

CONNECTED  WITH  THE  POLITICAL  SITUATION 

IN  ENGLAND  PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  87 

From  MacMaster's  School  History  of  the  United  States 

[25] 

P.  115  :  The  English  view  of  representation. — We,  in  this  country, 
do  not  consider  a  person  represented  in  a  legislature  unless  he  can 
cast  a  vote  for  a  member  of  that  legislature.  In  Great  Britain,  not 
individuals  but  classes  were  represented.  Thus,  the  clergy  were 
represented  by  the  bishops  who  sat  in  the  House  of  Lords;  the 
nobility,  by  the  nobles  who  had  seats  in  the  House  of  Lords;  and 
the  mass  of  the  people,  the  commons,  by  the  members  of  the  House 
of  Commons.  At  that  time,  very  few  Englishmen  could  vote  for  a 
member  of  the  House  of  Commons.  Great  cities  like  Liverpool, 
Leeds,  Manchester,  did  not  send  even  one  member.  When  the 
colonists  held  that  they  were  not  represented  in  Parliament  because 
they  did  not  elect  any  members  of  that  Body,  Englishmen  answered 
that  they  were  represented,  because  they  were  commoners. 

Sons  of  Liberty. — Meantime,  the  colonists  had  not  been  idle.  Tak 
ing  the  name  of  "Sons  of  Liberty",  a  name  given  them  in  a  speech 
by  a  member  of  Parliament  (named  Barre)  friendly  to  their  cause, 
they  began  to  associate  for  resistance  to  the  Stamp  Act 


THESE  ARE  THE  ONLY  REFERENCES  TO  MEN 
AND  CONDITIONS  IN  ENGLAND,  HAVING 
HAD  AN  INFLUENCE  ON  THE  CON 
FLICT  ;  PITT,  BURKE,  FOX,  ARE 
NOT  MENTIONED. 


88  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Montgomery's  The  Beginner's  American  History 

[26] 

P.  100 :  The  war  with  the  French  lasted  a  number  of  years.  It 
ended  by  the  English  getting  possession  of  the  whole  of  America 
from  the  Atlantic  ocean  to  the  Mississippi  river.  All  this  part  of 
America  was  ruled  by  George  the  Third,  king  of  England.  The  king 
now  determined  to  send  over  more  soldiers,  and  keep  them  here 
to  prevent  the  French  in  Canada  from  trying  to  get  back  the 
country  they  had  lost.  He  wanted  the  people  here  in  the  thirteen 
colonies  to  pay  the  cost  of  keeping  these  soldiers.  But  this  the 
people  were  not  willing  to  do,  because  they  felt  they  were  able  to 
protect  themselves  without  help  of  any  kind.  Then  the  king  said, 
If  the  Americans  will  not  give  the  money,  I  will  take  it  from  them 
by  force, — for  pay  it  they  must  and  shall.  This  was  more  than 
the  king  would  have  dared  say  about  England;  for  there,  if  he 
wanted  money  to  spend  on  his  army,  he  had  to  ask  the  people  for  it, 
and  they  could  give  it  or  not  as  they  thought  best.  The  Amer 
icans  said,  We  have  the  same  rights  as  our  brothers  in  England,  and 
the  king  cannot  force  us  to  give  a  single  copper  against  our  will.  If 
he  tries  to  take  it  from  us,  we  will  fight.  Some  of  the  greatest  men 
in  England  agreed  with  us,  and  said  that  they  would  fight,  too,  if 
they  were  in  our  place. 

But  George  III.  did  not  know  the  Americans,  he  did  not  think 
that  they  meant  what  they  said.  He  tried  to  make  them  pay  the 
money,  but  they  would  not. 


THE  REFERENCE  TO  "THE  GREATEST  MEN  IN 

ENGLAND"  IS  THE  ONLY  MENTION  .OF  THE 

ATTITUDE  OF  PROMINENT 

ENGLISHMEN. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  89 

From  Quackenbos'  Elementary  History  of  the 
United  States 

[28] 

P.  85 :  The  colonies  were  willing  to  bear  the  expense  of  the  war. 
But  they  claimed  that  Parliament  had  no  right  to  tax  them,  be 
cause  they  were  not  represented  by  any  delegates  in  that  body. 
Taxation  without  representation  they  would  not  submit  to. 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  CONDITIONS  IN  ENGLAND 

PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION,  NOR  TO  THE 

SERVICES  OF  PROMINENT  ENGLISHMEN 

IN  FAVOR  OF  THE  COLONISTS. 


90  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Quackenbos'  School  History  of  the  United  States 

[30] 

P.  190:  Meanwhile  the  British  ministry,  no  longer  guided  by  the 
liberal  counsels  of  Pitt,  pushed  through  Parliament  a  bill,  which  laid 
an  impost  on  wines,  increased  the  duty  on  sugar,  and  provided  for 
the  more  rigid  enforcement  of  the  regulations  for  collecting  the 
revenue. 

P.  191 :  The  reading  of  these  resolutions  (Patrick  Henry's)  pro 
duced  unbounded  consternation  in  the  House.  The  Speaker  and 
many  of  the  members  were  Royalists,  and  a  protracted  and  violent 
debate  followed. 

P.  197:  The  merchants  of  America  adhered  to  their  resolution 
not  to  import  British  commodities,  and  the  effect  began  to  be  felt 
across  the  Atlantic.  An  appeal  was  made  to  Parliament  by  London 
merchants ;  and,  in  1770,  Lord  North  having  become  Prime  minister, 
the  offensive  duty  was  removed  from  every  article  except  tea,  .  .  . 


NO  LIGHT  THROWN   ON   GENERAL  POLITICAL 

CONDITIONS  IN  ENGLAND  PRIOR  TO  THE 

REVOLUTION,  NOR  TO  THE  SERVICES 

RENDERED  THE  COLONISTS  BY 

PROMINENT  ENGLISHMEN. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  91 

From  Scudder's  A  Short  History  of  the  United  States 

[32] 

P.  104:  From  the  beginning,  England  had  been  wont  to  think  of  the 
colonies  as  existing  for  the  convenience  of  England.  English  mer 
chants  sold  their  goods  to  the  colonies;  English  ships  traded  with 
them.  Laws  were  made  by  Parliament  forbidding  the  colonists  to 
manufacture  articles. 

P.  106 :  Although  Englishmen  generally  knew  little  about  America, 
there  were  some  who  knew  well  how  valuable  the  colonies  were. 
They  advised  the  king  to  be  more  strict  in  preventing  smuggling,  so 
that  the  ships  which  sailed  out  of,  and  into,  the  colonial  ports  should 
pay  more  money  into  the  king's  treasury. 

P.  109:  If  they  obeyed  Parliament  when  they  had  no  voice  in 
Parliament,  they  were  obeying  a  tyrant.  .  .  . 

They  were  so  determined,  and  it  was  so  impossible  for  England 
to  make  them  buy  the  stamps,  that  the  Stamp  Act  was  repealed;  .  .  . 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  CONDITIONS  IN  ENGLAND 

PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION,  NOR  TO  THE 

SERVICES  RENDERED  THE  COLONISTS 

BY  PROMINENT  ENGLISHMEN. 


92  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Swinton's  First  Lessons  in  Our  Country's  History 

[35] 

P.  74 :  Well,  very  soon  they  found  that  they  could  make  better  laws 
than  the  king  could  make  for  them.  Thus  there  was  independence 
in  the  very  air  of  America. 

This  was  the  deep  cause  of  the  revolt  of  the  colonies :  Provi 
dence  designed  that  on  this  continent  should  be  seen  an  example 
of  democratic  government,  which  means  government  "of  the  people, 
for  the  people,  by  the  people". 

P.  76 :  The  Stamp  Act  was  passed  in  1765.  The  colonists  thought 
it  was  a  mean  trick,  intended  to  make  them  pay  taxes  whether  they 
would  or  not. 

P.  77:  The  result  was  that  when  the  British  government  saw  the 
terrible  storm  which  the  Stamp  Act  had  raised  in  America,  they 
had  sense  enough  to  do  away  with  it.  ... 

You  may  imagine  they  hated  the  red-coats,  and  it  was  not  long 
before  collisions  began. 

P.  79:  Even  then,  if  England  had  been  wise,  the  trouble  might 
all  have  been  settled.  But  it  seemed  as  though  Providence  made  the 
British  rulers  blind. 


NO  PICTURE  OF  CONDITIONS  IN  ENGLAND 

PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION,  NOR  ANY 

REFERENCE  TO  THE  GREAT  SERVICES 

RENDERED  THE  COLONISTS  BY 

PROMINENT  ENGLISHMEN. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  93 

From  Swinton's  Outlines  of  the  World's  History 
[37] 

This  text-book  reviews  History  by  treating  certain  epochs  in  gen 
eral  outline.    It  does  not  go  into  detail. 


ABSENCE  OF  REFERENCE  TO  THE  SPECIAL 
SUBJECTS  OF  THIS  STUDY  NATURAL. 


BOOKS  IN  USE  AT  PRESENT 


GROUP  ONE 

Text-books 

which 

deal  fully  with  the  grievances  of  the  colonists, 
give  an  account  of  general  political  conditions  in  England 

prior  to  the  American  Revolution, 

and  give  credit  to  prominent  Englishmen 

for  the  services  they  rendered  the  Americans. 


From  Channing's  Students   History  of  the  United  States 

[49] 

P.  in  :  In  1760  George  III.  ascended  the  throne.  Born  in  England, 
he  was  ambitious  to  rule  well  and  to  regain  for  the  monarchy  the 
power  which  the  kings  had  once  wielded  in  the  state.  To  accomplish 
this  he  destroyed  the  power  of  the  old  governing  aristocracy  and 
appointed  men  to  high  office  who  would  do  his  bidding. 

P.  112:  Regarding  the  system  as  a  whole,  it  is  impossible  to  say 
that  it  was  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  colonists,  for  what  they  lost 
in  one  direction,  they  gained  in  another.  The  Virginians,  for  in 
stance,  were  forbidden  to  ship  their  tobacco  to  a  foreign  port,  but 
they  were  given  a  monopoly  of  the  British  tobacco  markets. 

P.  113:  Pitt  ordered  the  customs  officials  to  do  their  duty,  and, 
by  a  display  of  zeal,  they  endeavored  to  atone  for  their  former 
laxity.  .  .  . 

From  the  strictly  legal  standpoint  the  case  seemed  to  be  in  favor 
of  the  royal  side.  Otis,  therefore,  boldly  asserted  that  Parliament 
could  not  legalize  tyranny  and  the  use  of  writs  of  assistance  was 
often  tyrannical. 

P.  117:  The  Act  (Stamp)  in  itself  was  on  the  same  lines  as  a  law 
in  force  in  Britain  at  that  time.  ...  It  was  not  intended  to  draw 
the  money  thus  raised  to  England,  but  to  expend  it  in  America  in 
the  purchase  of  food  and  other  supplies  for  the  soldiers.  The  evil 
feature  of  the  act  as  a  law  was  that  persons  accused  of  offences 
under  it  might  not  enjoy  the  benefits  of  trial  by  jury,  at  the  discre 
tion  of  the  prosecuting  officer.  .  .  . 

The  members  of  the  latter  body  (House  of  Commons)  were 
elected,  and  were  supposed  to  represent  all  classes  of  people.  Some 
of  the  electoral  districts,  indeed,  contained  no  inhabitants.  •  In  one 
of  these,  Old  Sarum,  it  was  possible  in  dry  seasons  to  trace  the 
foundations  of  old  buildings  by  the  color  of  the  grass;  . 
Yet  each  of  these  returned  members  to  the  House  of  Commons. 

P.  119:  The  English  idea  of  representative  government  signified 
representation  of  all  classes  of  the  community,  and  not  at  all  repre 
sentation  by  population.  The  great  mass  of  Englishmen  belong 
ing  to  any  particular  class  had  no  vote  for  a  member  of  the  House 
of  Commons,  but  other  Englishmen  of  the  same  class  had  a  vote. 
It  was  held,  therefore,  that  all  the  members  of  that  class  were  vir 
tually  represented.  It  was  easy  to  extend  the  theory  and  to  argue 
that  the  colonists  _  were  also  represented,  inasmuch  as  merchants 
interested  in  colonial  trade  were  represented  in  the  House  of  Com 
mons. 

P.  123 :  Pitt  denied  the  right  of  Parliament  to  lay  internal  taxes 
on  the  colonies  and  rejoiced  that  America  had  resisted.  .  .  .  The 
same  view  was  enforced  in  the  House  of  Peers  by  Lord  Camden, 
who  urged  that  taxation  without  representation  was  against  the  con- 

97 


98  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

stitution.  Their  arguments  were  ably  met  in  the  Commons  by  George 
Grenville,  and  in  the  Peers  by  Lord  Mansfield,  who  had  the  law 
clearly  on  their  side,  although  expediency  was  as  plainly  with  Pitt 
and  Camden.  The  English  merchants  petitioned  for  the  repeal  of 
the  Act,  on  the  ground  that  the  disturbances  which  it  had  caused  in 
America  were  disastrous  to  colonial  trade.  Thus  urged,  and  with 
the  means  of  retreat  pointed  out  by  Pitt,  the  ministers  brought 
in  two  bills, — one  to  repeal  the  Stamp  Act,  the  other  declaring 
that  Parliament  had  power  to  "legislate  for  the  colonies  in  all  cases 
whatsoever."  .  .  .  The  colonists,  considering  that  they  had  won, 
rejoiced  greatly,  and  no  name  was  more  popular  with  them  than  that 
of  William  Pitt.  .  .  .  There  can  be  no  question  that  Pitt  was 
wrong  in  his  attempt  to  separate  the  taxing  power  from  the  general 
legislative  power,  and  that  Mansfield  and  Grenville  were  right  in 
asserting  that  one  could  not  exist  without  the  other. 

P.  138:  To  this  policy,  the  opposition  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
led  by  Burke  and  Charles  James  Fox,  offered  stout  resistance,  but 
their  espousal  of  the  colonial  cause  only  deepened  the  hostility  of 
the  king.  Chatham's  proposals  for  a  more  conciliatory  policy  were 
set  aside  with  contempt. 

P.  148 :  In  1776,  Washington  wrote,  "When  I  took  command  of  the 
army  (July,  1775),  I  abhorred  the  idea  of  independence;  now,  I  am 
convinced,  nothing  else  will  save  us." 


PICTURE  OF  CONDITIONS  IN  ENGLAND  PRIOR 

TO  THE  REVOLUTION  AND  SOME  OF  THE 

CLAIMS  OF  BOTH  SIDES  PRESENTED. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  99 

From  Dickson's  American  History  for  Grammar  Schools 

[52] 

P.  146:  The  genius  of  Pitt  had  been  shown,  however,  in  the  Old 
World  as  well  as  in  the  New;  .  .  . 

P.  152 :  .  .  .  So  smuggling  became  common,  and  it  was  often 
quite  impossible  to  find  out  where  it  was  going  on.  ... 

P.  153:  There  were  men  in  England  who  believed  that  the  colon 
ists  were  right;  some  of  these  men  were  members  of  Parliament 
and  they  voted  against  the  Stamp  Act. 

But  these  friends  of  America  in  England  were  fewer  than  those 
who  upheld  the  Parliament;  .  .  . 

P.  154:  Many  of  the  members  wished  to  repeal  the  act,  and  the 
question  was  fiercely  debated.  At  last  it  was  voted  to  repeal  it,  and 
great  was  the  joy  in  America  when  the  news  came.  It  is  said  that 
the  people  of  London,  many  of  whom  sympathized  with  the  colonists, 
were  rejoiced  at  the  victory  of  their  kinsmen  over  the  sea.  William 
Pitt,  who  was  strongly  in  favor  of  the  American  ideas  in  regard  to 
taxation  without  representation",  was  loudly  cheered  as  he  passed 
along  the  streets. 

P.  156:  A  few  far-seeing  men  like  Pitt  and  Edmund  Burke  and 
Colonel  Barre  could  see  that  it  was  the  familiar  English  principle  of 
self-government  that  the  colonists  wished  to  preserve;  and  they 
warned  Parliament  to  let  the  whole  question  alone 

Since  1688  when  the  throne  of  England  had  been 'taken  from 
James  II.  and  given  to  William  and  Mary,  Parliament  had  ruled 
the  country.  But  there  was  now  on  the  English  throne  a  king 
who  was  not  satisfied  to  be  anything  less  than  a  real  ruler  He  took 
an  active  part  in  political  affairs.  He  set  to  work  to  make  friends 
among  the  members  of  Parliament. 

Whom  do  you  think  he  chose  for  his  friends?  The  wisest  and 
best  men  of  England?  No,  for  if  they  were  wise  and  honest,  they 
would  not  be  willing  to  be  led  by  the  king,  but  would  wish  to  be 
leaders  themselves.  So  the  "king's  friends",  as  they  came  to  be 
known,  were  usually  the  weaker  men,  who  would  do  just  as  the  king 
wished,  or  even  bad  men,  who  cared  nothing  for  right  and  wrong 
but  wanted  to  be  in  favor  with  the  king. 

It  was  one  of  the  "king's  friends"  who  proposed  the  tax  on  tea, 
glass,  and  the  other  articles;  and  the  king  was  perhaps  the  loudest 
m  saying  that  the  colonists  must  be  made  to  see  that  Parliament  could 

le  them  in  any  and  every  way.  ...  For  there  were  in  England 
itselt  many  thousands  of  people  who  elected  no  representatives  to 
rariiament.  No  change  had  been  made  in  the  assignment  of  mem 
bers  for  two  centuries,  and  in  that  time  many  new  towns— large 
towns,  some  of  them,  such  as  Leeds  and  Birmingham  and  Man- 
cnester— had  sprung  up,  and  had  no  members  in  Parliament  at  all. 
un  the  other  hand,  some  members  in  Parliament  represented  old 
towns  which  had  dwindled  away  until  there  were  no  voters  left  to 


100  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

elect  a  representative.  These  places  were  sometimes  called  "rotten 
boroughs",  and  the  men  who  represented  them  usually  obtained  their 
seats  in  Parliament  because  they  paid  money  to  the  men  who  owned 
the  land.  Thus  the  British  Parliament  no  longer  truly  represented 
the  people,  and  many  men  in  England  were  demanding  reform. 

For  many  reasons  King  George  wished  no  reform.  He  pre 
ferred  Parliament  as  it  was ;  whether  the  people  were  truly  repre 
sented  or  not  did  not  disturb  him.  "Taxation  without  representa 
tion"  seemed  to  him  perfectly  proper  if  by  it  he  could  gain  his 
own  ends.  So  we  find  the  king  and  his  friends  in  Parliament  al 
ways  against  the  colonists  on  this  question,  and  from  this  time  on  it 
is  really  the  king  and  his  friends  who  are  responsible  for  the  com 
ing  of  war. 

P.  163 :  The  king  was  taking  with  each  succeeding  year  a  larger 
part  in  the  government.  He  had  succeeded  in  getting  a  prime  min 
ister,  Lord  North,  who  was  willing  in  all  things  to  follow  the  king's 
wishes.  In  fact,  some  one  has  said  that  during  the  years  of  Lord 
North's  holding  office,  "the  king  was  his  own  prime  minister". 

P.  166:  .  .  .  in  spite  of  the  protests  of  Edmund  Burke,  who 
made  a  great  speech  in  the  House  of  Commons,  and  of  Fox,  Barre, 
and  other  men  who  saw  the  dangers  into  which  the  government  was 
blindly  stumbling,  Parliament  proceeded  to  punish  the  "lawless 
town". 


PICTURE  OF  CONDITIONS  IN  ENGLAND  PRIOR 

TO  THE  REVOLUTION  AND  OF  THE  EFFORTS 

MADE  BY  PROMINENT  ENGLISHMEN  IN 

FAVOR  OF  THE  COLONISTS. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS        : 

From  Fiske's  History  of  the  United  States 
[61] 

See  extracts  under  "Books  in  use  more  than  twenty  years  ago",  No. 
16,  page  37- 


"PARLIAMENT  DID  NOT  TRULY  REPRESENT 
THE  PEOPLE  OF  GREAT  BRITAIN." 


102  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Gorton's  Elementary  History  of  the  United  States 
Book  Two 

[67] 

P.  46:  It  does  not  appear  that  as  yet  they  had  gone  so  far  as  to 
object  to  English  rule  itself,  but  only  to  the  way  in  which  it  was  used. 

P.  55 :  We  have  seen  in  the  first  part  of  this  history,  that  about 
all  the  nations  of  Western  Europe  undertook  to  plant  colonies  in 
America.  Their  purpose  in  so  doing  was,  almost  without  exception, 
to  extend  their  own  power  and  possessions  and  by  this  means  to 
enrich  themselves.  .  .  .  The  theory  was  that  colonies  existed 
mainly  for  the  benefit  of  the  parent  country. 

P.  58:  However,  England  had  the  power,  and  proceeded  to  tax 
the  colonies,  though  even  in  England  there  was  a  strong  party,  led 
by  Edmund  Burke  and  William  Pitt,  that  very  strongly  opposed  such 
a  policy. 

P.  60 :  As  Burke  said  before  Parliament,  "We  never  seem  to  gain  a 
paltry  advantage  over  them  (the  Americans)  in  debate,  without 
attacking  some  of  those  principles,  or  deriding  some  of  those  feel 
ings,  for  which  our  ancestors  shed  their  blood." 

P.  62:  In  the  stormy  debates  that  followed,  the  bill  (The  repeal 
of  the  Stamp  Act)  was  warmly  supported  by  some  of  England's 
great  men— William  Pitt,  Edmund  Burke,  and  Colonel  Barre.  .  .  . 

In  the  debates,  Pitt  had  said,  "I  rejoice  that  America  has  resisted  1 
Three  millions  of  people,  so  dead  to  all  the  feelings  of  liberty  as 
voluntarily  to  submit  to  be  slaves,  would  have  been  fit  instruments 
to  make  slaves  of  all  the  rest";  and  Colonel  Barre  had  said,  "The 
Americans  are  a  people  jealous  of  their  liberties,  and  who  will 
vindicate  them,  if  they  should  be  violated." 

P.  81 :  Although  Parliament  voted  to  send  new  supplies  to  the 
army  in  America,  and  continue  the  struggle,  the  war  was  mostly  of 
the  king's  making  and  was  not  popular  among  the  English  people. 
They  were  not  very  much  inclined  to  enlist  in  the  army,  and  the 
king  was  compelled  to  hire  an  additional  force  of  seventeen  thousand 
men  from  Germany,  mostly  Hessians,  to  help  him  overcome  the 
Americans. 

P.  no:  From  the  first,  many  of  the  best  people  and  the  wisest 
statesmen  had  felt  that  the  war  was  a  mistaken  policy. 


MORE  SIGNIFICANT  THAN  THESE  QUOTATIONS 
IS  CHAPTER  XVIII  (Pages  iiiff.),  HEADED  "LEAD 
ERS  OF  THE  REVOLUTION",  IN  WHICH  ONE 
PARAGRAPH  IS  DEVOTED  TO  EDMUND  BURKE 
AND  WILLIAM  PITT.  CHILDREN  WHO  ARE  SO 
INSTRUCTED  ARE  NOT  APT  TO  BE  UNJUSTLY 
PREJUDICED. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  103 

From  Woodburn  and  Moran's  Elementary  American 
History  and  Government 


P.  117:  Unfortunately  at  this  time  the  British  government  was  not 
very  wisely  conducted.  George  III.,  an  obstinate  and  in  some  ways 
a  stupid  king,  had  just  come  to  the  throne  (1760),  and  he  attempted 
to  take  the  government  into  his  own  hands  instead  of  allowing  able 
ministers  to  rule.  In  England  the  prime  minister  governs  through 
Parliament,  and  the  king  must  act  on  the  minister's  advice.  George 
.II.  sought  to  make  his  ministers  do  as  he  wished.  By  means  of 
royal  favors  and  money  bribes  the  king  controlled  the  votes  of  a 
group  of  members  in  Parliament  who  came  to  be  called  "the  king's 
friends",  while  the  Whig  party  that  had  been  in  control  of  the 
government  for  many  years  was  divided  into  factions. 

Moreover,  Parliament  did  not  represent  the  people.  There  were 
populous  towns  that  had  no  representation  at  all  in  Parliament, 
while  "rotten  boroughs",  like  "Old  Sarum",  where  no  people  lived 
at  all,  still  had  members  of  Parliament  because  they  had  had  them 
long  ago.  The  members  for  these  places  were  chosen  by  some  lord 
or  rich  landowner.  These  conditions  were  bad  and  were  most  un 
favorable  to  the  adoption  of  wise  and  unselfish  laws  for  the  colonies. 

Besides  these  bad  conditions  at  home  and  the  free  and  inde 
pendent  spirit  of  the  colonies,  there  were  other  causes  leading  to  the 
quarrel  with  the  mother  country. 

P.  118:  For  many  years  these  trade  laws  had  not  been  enforced. 
John  Adams  said  that  they  were  old  and  out  of  use  and  nobody 
expected  them  to  be  enforced.  Their  violation  was  so  common 
and  smuggling  was  so  generally  practiced  that  it  was  costing  the 
government  three  dollars  to  collect  one  dollar  in  Revenue  at  Amer 
ican  ports. 

P.  119,  FOOT  NOTE:  In  trying  to  get  a  monopoly  of  her  colonial 
trade  Great  Britain  was  doing  only  what  other  nations  were  doing 
at  that  time,  but  that  did  not  make  any  difference  with  the  colonies 
whose  interests  were  interfered  with  by  the  trade  laws. 

P.  134:  The  war  had  begun.  But  it  must  be  remembered  that  it 
was  not  for  independence  that  the  Americans  had  taken  up  arms. 
Washington  said,  "When  I  first  took  command  of  the  army  I  ab 
horred  the  idea  of  independence",  and  he  still  hoped  for  "a  lasting 
and  happy  union  with  Great  Britain."  Jefferson  said,  "Before  the 
iQth  of  April,  1775,  I  had  never  heard  a  whisper  of  a  disposition  to 
separate  from  the  mother  country."  Franklin  said  that  the  colon 
ists  did  not  desire  independence  and  that  they  did  not  oppose  the 
measures  of  Parliament  for  this  purpose. 

....  In  this  quarrel,  and  in  the  war  to  which  it  led,  the  Amer 
ican  cause  had  warm  friends  in  England.  William  Pitt,  or  Lord 
Chatham,  the  greatest  English  statesman  of  that  day,  said  he  re 
joiced  that  America  had  resisted.  He  said  Parliament  had  no 


104  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

right  to  tax  America.  Edmund  Burke,  another  great  English 
statesman,  pleaded  with  Parliament  to  pursue  a  wiser  policy  towards 
the  colonies.  He  said  it  was  not  expedient  to  tax  America.  Charles 
J.  Fox,  another  English  leader,  spoke  of  Washington  and  his 
troops  as  "our  army",  and  he  rejoiced  at  American  victories.  These 
men  were  English  Whigs  who  were  disposed  to  favor  popular 
rights  and  to  oppose  the  king's  power.  On  the  other  hand,  many 
Americans  favored  Great  Britain  and  some  of  them  fought  in  the 
British  armies  during  the  war.  Perhaps  a  third  of  the  people  in 
America,  in  some  places  a  majority,  opposed  the  Revolution.  .  .  . 
So  the  war  of  the  Revolution  is  to  be  thought  of  as  a  civil  war.  It 
was  not  entirely  a  war  of  the  English  against  the  Americans,  but 
was  rather  a  war  between  two  parties,  and  in  some  places  it  became 
a  very  bitter  partisan  warfare.  However,  the  majority  in  Great 
Britain  favored  the  war  against  America.  .  .  . 

The  colonies  did  not  wish  to  cut  themselves  off  from  the  mother 
country.  They  were  proud  of  the  English  name  and  dominion  and 
they  gloried  in  English  history,  but  they  insisted  also  upon  having 
the  rights  of  Englishmen. 


"PARLIAMENT  DID  NOT  REPRESENT  THE  PEO 
PLE    .     .     .    THE  AMERICAN  CAUSE  HAD 
WARM  FRIENDS  IN  ENGLAND." 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  105 

From  Woodburn  and  Moran's  American  History  and 
Government 


[92] 


P.  114:  She  had  to  do  thifl^^  organize  an  imperial  system)  at 
a  time  when  her  government  was  corrupt  and  when  a  stupid  and 
obstinate  king  was  coming  to  the  throne  who  would  no  longer  trust 
great  ministers  to  rule.  The  cause  of  the  American  Revolution 
lay  in  England  as  well  as  in  America,  and  one  of  its  principal  causes 
\\vas  George  III.  .  .  . 

He  would  not  choose  for  his  ministers  the  great  men  of  the  realm, 
like  Pitt  and  Fox  and  Burke.  He  set  about  systematically  to  get 
a  body  of  supporters  in  Parliament  who  came  to  be  known  as  the 
"King's  friends",  and  who  could  control  enough  votes  in  that  body 
to  do  what  the  king  wanted.  George  was  able  to  do  this  by  bribes 
and  threats,  titles  and  appointments,  and  by  royal  attentions  and 
favors  which  were  then,  even  more  than  now,  powerful  social  forces 
in  controlling  public  men.  Thus  the  king  managed  Parliament  by 
a  kind  of  bribery. 

Members  of  Parliament  did  not  represent  the  people.  In  America 
the  representatives,  who  taxed  and  governed,  represented  a  body 
of  people  who  lived  in  certain  definite  local  areas,  in  towns  and 
counties.  In  England  representation  was  of  interests  and  classes, 
not  of  districts  of  people,  and  many  of  the  populous  manufacturing 
cities  in  north  and  central  England  that  had  grown  up  in  recent 
years  had  no  representation  at  all  in  Parliament,  while  little  "rotten 
boroughs",  like  Gatton  and  "Old  Sarum",  consisting  only  of  a  green 
mound  and  a  ruined  wall,  still  had  members  of  Parliament  merely 
because  they  had  had  them  long  ago.  Thus  we  see  that  Great 
Britain  was  facing  new  colonial  problems  with  a  stupid  and  wrong- 
headed  king  and  a  deformed  and  corrupt  legislature. 

P.  117:  Now  these  restrictive  trade  laws  had  not  been  carefully 
enforced.  Colonial  merchants,  especially  those  in  New  England,  had 
evaded  them.  John  Adams  said  that  they  had  ceased  to  be  used, 
and  their  enforcement  was  no  longer  expected.  Much  smuggling 
was  indulged  in.  It  was  the  attempt  to  prevent  this  evasion  of  the 
trade  duties  that  had  led 'to  the  celebrated  "Writs  of  Assistance"  in 
1761. 

P.  122:  The  English  people  did  not  mean  to  oppress  the  Amer 
icans  or  deprive  them  of  their  rights.  We  ought  not  to  think  of  this 
quarrel  over  taxes  and  the  rights  of  the> colonies  as  between  the  Eng 
lish  people  on  one  side  and  the  Americans  on  the  other.  It  was 
rather  between  two  parties,  the  Tories  in  England  and  America,  on 
one  side,  and  the  Whigs  in  both  countries,  on  the  other.  Pitt  and 
Burke  and  Fox  and  Barre  and  Camden,  the  ablest  statesmen  of 
England,  were  on  the  American  side.  Pitt  (Lord  Chatham)  said  he 
rejoiced  that  America  had  resisted,  and  he  spoke  boldly  for  the  same 
principle  of  taxation  as  that  advocated  in  America  by  Hancock, 
Adams,  Henry,  and  Otis.  He  said  Parliament  had  no  right  to  tax 


106  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

America.  It  had  a  right,  he  said,  to  legislate  for  the  Americans  and 
"to  bind  them  in  all  cases  whatsoever,  except  to  take  their  money 
out  of  their  pockets  without  their  consent."  Burke  did  not  think  so 
much  of  the  right  of  taxation  but  he  pleaded  for  the  old  practice  (of 
requisitions),  which,  he  said,  had  worked  well.  He  thought  it  was 
unwise  to  tax  the  Americans,  as  it  would  cause  disturbances  and  ill 
feeling. 

P.  127:  Burke  pleaded  in  vain  for  its  (Tea  tax)  repeal  and  for 
full  restoration  of  the  old  way  of  letting  the  colonies  tax  and  govern 
themselves. 

P.  128 :  The  true  policy  would  have  been  to  do  as  Pitt  and  Burke 
advised, — to  repeal  the  tea  tax  and  seek  peace  and  conciliation  with 
America.  But  instead  of  this  Parliament  turned  to  the  fatal  policy 
of  coercion. 

P.  135:  It  was  not  for  independence  that  they  took  up  arms. 
Washington  said,  "When  I  first  took  command  of  the  army  I  ab 
horred  the  idea  of  independence" ;  he  even  then  hoped  for  "a  lasting 
and  happy  union  with  Great  Britain".  Jefferson  said,  "Before  the 
igih  of  April  1775,  I  had  never  heard  a  whisper  of  a  disposition  to 
separate  from  the  mother  country".  Franklin  told  Pitt  in  England 
that  the  colonists  did  not  desire  independence  and  such  was  not  their 
purpose  m  resisting  the  measures  of  Parliament. 


!WE  OUGHT  NOT  TO  THINK  OF  THIS  QUARREL 

...    AS  BEING  BETWEEN  THE  ENGLISH 

PEOPLE  ON  THE  ONE  SIDE  AND  THE 

AMERICANS  ON  THE  OTHER." 


BOOKS  IN  USE  AT  PRESENT 


GROUP  TWO 

Text-books 

which 

deal  fully  with  the  grievances  of  the  colonists, 
make  some  reference  to  general  political  conditions  in  England 

prior  to  the  American  Revolution, 
and  mention  some  prominent  Englishmen 
who  rendered  services  to  the  Americans. 


From  Adams  and  Trent's  History  of  the  United  States 

[41] 

P.  89:  It  is  certain  that  a  new  spirit  of  loyalty  and  devotion  to  the 
mother  country  had  sprung  up,  when  in  1760,  one  year  after  the 
fall  of  Quebec,  George  III.,  then  a  young  man  of  twenty-two, 
ascended  the  throne.  He  had  a  great  opportunity  to  conciliate  the 
colonists  and  to  increase  their  growing  affection;  but  he  defiantly 
took  the  opposite  course. 

The  young  king  brought  to  the  throne  a  very  unfortunate  mixture 
of  good  and  bad  qualities.  He  had  an  unblemished  character;  he 
had  a  strong  will  and  was  very  conscientious  and  industrious;  but 
he  was  possessed  with  the  idea  that  the  power  of  the  throne  should 
be  greatly  strengthened,  and  that  all  opposition  to  such  increase  of 
power  should  be  put  down,  if  need  be,  by  main  force.  His  ambition 
was  to  restore  to  the  Crown  the  power  which  it  had  unlawfully  ex 
ercised  before  the  two  English  revolutions  had  made  it  subordinate 
to  Parliament.  For  the  accomplishment  of  this  purpose  he  com 
mitted  the  fatal  blunder  of  pushing  aside  the  great  statesmen  he 
found  in  office  and  of  surrounding  himself  with  ministers  who 
would  aid  him  in  carrying  out  his  own  policy. 

Another  peculiarity  of  the  situation  was  the  prevalence  of  a  decided 
spirit  of  independence  of  one  another  among  the  individual  colonies. 
.  .  .  And  James  Otis,  one  of  the  foremost  of  American  patriots, 
said  in  1765,  "Were  the  colonies  left  to  themselves,  tomorrow 
America  would  be  a  mere  shambles  of  blood  and  confusion  before 
the  little  petty  states  could  be  united."  When  George  III.  ascended 
the  throne,  the  colonies  seemed  more  afraid  of  one  another  than 
they  were  of  England,  and  more  likely  to  drift  into  separate  nation 
alities  like  those  of  Europe  than  they  were  to  unite  in  a  common 
effort  to  secure  independence  of  the  mother  country. 

P.  91 :  In  the  course  of  centuries  the  British  people  had  come  to 
recognize  the  principle,  "No  taxation  without  representation".  But 
in  the  time  of  George  III.  representation,  even  in  England,  was 
absurdly  imperfect.  Boroughs  of  not  more  than  half  a  dozen  voters 
sometimes  sent  two  members  to  the  British  Parliament,  while  some 
large  towns  like  Manchester  and  Birmingham  sent  no  representatives. 
The  people  permitted  this  bad  state  of  affairs  to  continue,  because 
the  doctrine  was  held  that  every  member  of  Parliament,  no  matter 
by  whom  he  was  elected,  represented  all  the  people  of  the  kingdom, 
and  not  merely  those  who  had  chosen  him.  According  to  this  theory, 
the  colonies  were  as  much  represented  in  Parliament  as  Manchester 
and  Birmingham ;  and  if  those  towns  could  be  taxed  without  direct 
representation,  there  appeared  no  just  reason  why  Massachusetts 
and  Virginia  and  the  other  colonies  should  complain  of  the  same 
method. 

But  the  colonists,  and  a  small  but  very  influential  minority  in 
Parliament,  took  another  view  of  the  case. 

P.  92 :  But  George  III.  stubbornly  held  that  if  the  colonies  resisted 

109 


110  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

the  supreme  authority  of  the  king  and  Parliament,  they  must  simply 
be  forced  into  obedience.  This  doctrine,  for  which  the  king,  and  the 
king  alone,  was  responsible,  was  the  fatal  error  that  cost  Great 
Britain  the  American  colonies. 

P.  93 :  This  belief  shows  how  generally  the  spirit  of  the  colonists 
was  misunderstood.  Only  a  few  of  the  greatest  and  wisest  of  the 
British  statesmen  saw  the  danger  in  the  policy  proposed.  These 
men,  of  whom  Chatham  and  Burke  were  the  leaders,  did  not  deny 
the  constitutional  right  of  Parliament  to  tax  all  British  subjects, 
but  they  held  that  it  would  be  madness  to  try  to  enforce  that  right, 
since  such  an  attempt  would  probably  result  in  the  loss  of  the  col 
onies.  The  very  thing  they  feared  and  predicted  took  place. 

P.  101 :  The  passage  of  these  acts  (Five  Acts  of  1774)  was  stren 
uously  opposed  by  several  of  the  strongest  men  in  Parliament.  The 
opposition  of  Fox,  Burke,  Pitt,  and  Barre  was  particularly  energetic. 
In  the  House  of  Peers,  Lord  Rockingham  and  his  friends  entered  a 
protest  on  the  journal  of  the  House,  and  the  Duke  of  Richmond 
declared,  in  his  indignation,  "I  wish  from  the  bottom  of  my  heart 
that  the  Americans  may  resist  and  get  the  better  of  the  forces  sent 
against  them". 


BLAME  FOR  THE  TROUBLE  PLACED  SQUARELY 
ON  THE  KING,  AND  THE  SERVICES  REN 
DERED  THE  COLONISTS  BY  PROMINENT 
ENGLISHMEN  RECOGNIZED. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  111 

From  Barnes'  American  History  for  Grammar  Grades 

[43] 

P.  180:  In  each  colony,  self-government  by  the  people  had  been 
tried,  and  the  result  was  good.  They  had  found  that  there  was  no 
need  for  kings.  Yet  they  had  no  thought  of  breaking  away  from 
the  mother  country. 

P.  182 :  On  goods  so  bought  they  paid  no  taxes  to  England.  Bring 
ing  taxed  goods  into  a  country  without  paying  taxes  on  them  is 
smuggling. 

Merchants  in  England  complained  that  they  were  losing  trade  in 
America  because  of  smuggling,  and  in  1761  England  tried  to  prevent 
it.  .  .^  .  England  had  been  liberal  with  her  colonies,  yet  she  had 
been  kind  only  so  far  as  kindness  was  gainful,  and  she  did  not 
always  act  with  far-seeing  wisdom. 

P.  183 :  In  1760  George  III.,  a  man  of  twenty-one,  had  come  to  the 
English  throne.  He  was  jealous  of  the  power  of  Parliament  and  he 
determined  to  lessen  it.  He  schemed  and  plotted  and  became  very 
much  disliked  by  his  subjects.  The  greatest,  wisest,  and  fairest- 
minded  of  England's  statesmen  were  against  him.  He  cared  little 
for  the  rights  of  Englishmen  in  England,  and  less  for  the  rights  of 
those  in  America. 

P.  184:  The  people  of  England  had,  by  this  time,  begun  to  see 
that  the  Stamp  Act  was  most  unjust  to  their  distant  friends  in 
America,  and  at  length  Parliament  repealed  it. 

P.  186 :  In  all  the  unfairness  that  had  been  shown,  it  was  not  Eng 
land  that  oppressed  the  colonies.  Her  best  and  wisest  statesmen 
said  that  such  harsh  laws  were  wrong.  It  was  the  young  and 
headstrong  king,  who  abused  the  colonies.  Since  wise  and  good  men 
would  not  help  him  in  his  course,  he  called  to  his  aid  those  who  had 
more  craft  and  selfishness  than  honesty.  He  spent  a  large  part 
of  the  vast  fortune  left  him  by  his  father,  in  bribing  members  of 
Parliament  to  do  his  will.  .  .  . 

As  in  England,  so  it  was  in  America.  The  Tories  in  the  colonies 
took  sides  with  the  king,  and  favored  the  Stamp  Act,  while  their 
neighbors,  the  Whigs,  were  against  the  Stamp  Act,  and  all  else 
that  cut  off  their  rights  as  Englishmen.  Had  the  great  Whig  party 
in  England  been  in  power  with  Edmund  Burke  as  its  leader,  it 
would  have  checked  the  king  in  his  foolish  course. 

P.  192 :  There  was,  as  yet,  no  strong  feeling  of  union  among  them, 
and  they  had  not  overcome  the  feeling  that  each  colony  was  for 
itself  and  none  for  all.  Many  people  sided  with  the  king,  and 
were  ready  to  fight  their  neighbors. 

NO  SPECIFIC  MENTION  OF  PITT,  NOR  OF  OTHER 

ENGLISHMEN  WHO  EXERTED  THEMSELVES 

IN  BEHALF  OF  THE  COLONISTS. 


THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

• 

From  Barnes'  Short  American  History  by  Grades,  Part  One 


P.   130:  In  each  colony  self-government  by  the  people  had  been 
tried,  and  the  result  was  good.     They  had  found  that  there  was  no 
need  for  kings.     Yet  they  had  no  thought  of  breaking  away  from 
the  mother  country. 
_. 

P.  312  :  On  goods  so  bought  they  paid  no  taxes  to  England.  Bring 
ing  taxed  goods  into  a  country  without  paying  taxes  on  them  is 
smuggling.  Merchants  in  England  complained  that  they  were  los 
ing  trade  in  America  because  of  smuggling,  and  in  1761  England 
tried  to  prevent  it.  ...  England  had  been  liberal  with  her  colonies, 
yet  she  had  been  kind  only  so  far  as  kindness  was  gainful,  and  she 
did  not  always  act  with  far-seeing  wisdom. 

P.  313:  In  1760  George  III.,  a  man  of  twenty-one,  had  come  to 
the  English  throne.  He  was  jealous  of  the  power  of  Parliament  and 
determined  to  lessen  it.  He  schemed  and  plotted  and  became  much 
disliked  by  his  subjects.  The  greatest,  wisest,  and  fairest-minded  of 
England's  statesmen  were  against  him.  He  cared  little  for  the 
rights  of  Englishmen  in  England,  and  less  for  the  rights  of  those 
in  America. 

P.  316:  The  people  of  England  had,  by  this  time,  begun  to  see  the 
Stamp  Act  was  most  unjust  to  their  distant  friends  in  America, 
and  at  length  Parliament  repealed  it. 
^ 

P.  318:  In  all  the  unfairness  that  had  been  shown,  it  was  not 
England  that  oppressed  the  colonies.  Her  best  and  wisest  statesmen 
said  that  such  harsh  laws  were  wrong.  It  was  the  young  and  head 
strong  king,  who  abused  the  colonies.  Since  wise  and  good  men 
would  not  help  him  in  his  course,  he  called  to  his  aid  those  who 
had  more  craft  and  selfishness  than  honesty.  He  spent  a  large  part 
of  the  vast  fortune  left  him  by  his  father,  in  bribing  members  of 
Parliament  to  do  his  will.  .  .  . 

As  in  England,  so  it  was  in  America.  The  Tories  in  the  colonies 
took  sides  with  the  king,  and  favored  the  Stamp  Act,  and  all  else 
that  cut  off  their  rights  as  Englishmen.  If  the  great  Whig  party  in 
England  had  been  in  power  with  Edmund  Burke  as  its  leader,  it 
would  have  checked  the  king  in  his  foolish  course. 

P.  326  :  .  .  .  There  was,  as  yet,  no  strong  feeling  of  union  among 
them,  and  they  had  not  overcome  the  feeling  that  each  colony  was 
for  itself  and  none  for  all.  Many  people  sided  with  the  king,  and 
were  ready  to  fight  their  neighbors. 

NO    SPECIFIC    REFERENCE   TO    PITT,    NOR    TO 

OTHER  ENGLISHMEN  WHO  EXERTED  THEM 

SELVES  IN  BEHALF  OF  THE  COLONISTS. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  113 

From  Barnes'  Short  American  History  by  Grades 
Part  Two 

[45] 

P.  3:  In  each  colony,  self-government  by  the  people  had  been 
tried,  and  the  result  was  good.  The  Americans  knew  more  about  it, 
and  believed  in  it  more  than  other  people  that  had  ever  lived.  They 
had  found  that  there  was  no  need  for  kings.  Yet  they  were  true 
to  England  and  had  no  thought  of  breaking  away  from  the  mother 
country. 

P.  4:  But  some  of  the  Englishmen  at  home  thought  differently. 
To  their  minds,  a  colony  was  simply  a  number  of  people  living  away 
from  home,  from  whom  money  might  be  wrung.  Their  sole  thought 
was,  "How  much  gain  can  we  get  from  the  colonies  ?" 

P.  5:  Other  nations  treated  their  colonies  in  the  same  way,  so 
England  was  no  worse  than  they. 

P.  9:  On  goods  so  bought  they  paid  no  taxes  to  England. 

Bringing  goods  into  a  country  without  paying  such  taxes  on  them 
as  the  law  demands  is  smuggling.  But  the  colonists  felt  that  the 
law  was  unjust,  and  that  breaking  it  was  neither  wrong  nor  dis 
graceful.  .  .  .  Many  leading  merchants  were  smugglers.  .  .  . 

Merchants  in  England  complained  that  they  were  losing  trade  in 
America  because  of  so  much  smuggling  there,  and  in  1761,  England 
tried  to  break  it  up. 

P.  10 :  If  we  judge  her  (England)  doings  by  those  of  other  na 
tions,  England  had  been  liberal  with  her  colonies  from  the  very 
first.  Governments  were  not  very  generous  in  those  days. 

P.  ii :  In  1760,  when  everything  looked  bright  for  England, 
George  III.,  a  man  of  twenty-one,  as  ignorant  and  stupid  as  he  was 
well  meaning,  had  come  to  the  English  throne.  He  was  a  king 
of  the  old  style.  He  believed  that  the  king's  will  should  be  the  law. 
He  thought  that  people  were  made  for  kings,  rather  than  that  kings 
were  made  for  people.  He  wanted  to  be  such  a  king  as  the  Jameses 
and  Charleses  had  been.  He  was  jealous  of  the  power  of  Parliament, 
just  as  they  had  been,  and  he  set  about  bending  it  to  his  will.  He 
schemed  and  plotted  for  power  in  dishonest  ways.  In  a  short  time, 
he  became  very  much  disliked  by  his  subjects.  The  greatest,  wisest, 
and  fairest-minded  of  England's  statesmen  were  against  him.  He 
cared  little  for  the  rights  of  Englishmen  in  England,  and  less  for  the 
rights  of  those  in  America. 

P.  14:  The  stamp  law  was  unfair.  And,  since  the  colonists  were 
not  asked  to  say  what  they  thought  about  it  before  it  was  put  in 
force,  the  law  was  an  insult. 

P.  15 :  The  people  of  England  had,  by  this  time,  begun  to  say,  that 


THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

it  was  most  unjust  to  their  distant  friends  in  America,  to  keep  the 
Stamp  Act  alive,  and  at  length  Parliament  repealed  it. 

P.  19:  In  all  the  unfairness  that  had  been  shown,  it  was  not  Eng 
land  that  oppressed  the  colonies.  Her  best  and  wisest  statesmen  said 
that  such  harsh  laws  were  wrong.  It  was  the  young,  headstrong  and 
ill  advised  king,  that  abused  the  colonies.  He,  in  his  conceit,  was 
set  upon  gaining  for  himself  such  powers  as  English  kings  had 
and  used  before  the  time  of  Cromwell.  Since  wise  and  good  men 
would  not  help  him  in  his  course,  he  called  to  his  aid  those  who  had 
more  craft  and  selfishness,  than  honesty.  He  spent  a  large  part  of 
the  vast  fortune  left  him  by  his  father,  in  bribing  members  of  Parlia 
ment  to  do  his  will.  ...  In  his  later  life,  he  became  so  openly 
insane  that  he  was  kept  in  restraint. 

P.  20 :  As  in  England,  so  it  was  in  America.  The  Tories  in  the 
colonies  took  sides  with  the  king,  and  favored  the  Stamp  Act,  or 
anything  else  that  the  king  wanted.  Their  neighbors,  the  Whigs, 
were  against  the  Stamp  Act,  and  all  else  that  cut  off  their  rights  as 
Englishmen. 

P.  21 :  The  disputes  that  brought  about  the  war,  were  not  between 
the  colonists  and  all  the  English  at  home.  They  were  rather  be 
tween  the  Tories  and  the  Whigs  on  both  sides  of  the  sea,  neighbor 
against  neighbor.  Had  the  great  Whig  party  been  in  power  with 
Edmund  Burke  as  its  leader,  it  would  have  checked  the  king  in  his 
foolish  course.  .  .  .  Had  there  been  no  war,  this  great  country 
would  probably  now  be  a  great  branch  of  the  British  Empire. 

P.  33 :  There  was,  as  yet,  not  such  a  strong  feeling  of  union  among 
them,  as  was  needed  at  the  begininng  of  a  war.  They  had  yet  much 
to  do  to  overcome  the  feeling,  that  each  colony  was  for  itself  and 
none  for  all.  Many  of  the  people  in  each  colony  sided  with  the 
king,  and  were  ready  to  fight  their  neighbors  at  his  command. 

P.  35 :  The  little  colonies  wanted  to  have  as  much  power  as  the 
big  ones,  and  the  big  ones  wanted  to  control  the  little  ones. 

\ 


NO  MENTION  OF  PITT,  NOR  OF  OTHER  ENGLISH 
MEN  WHO  EXERTED  THEMSELVES  IN  BE 
HALF  OF  THE  COLONIES. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT  BOOKS  115 

From  Bourne  and  Benton's  History  of  the  United  States 

[46] 

P.  161 :  Pitt  was  angry  at  the  conduct  of  these  colonial  traders. 
He  was  told  that  the  best  way  to  stop  such  trade  with  the  enemy  was 
to  enforce  the  Sugar  Act.  This  he  resolved  to  do,  and  the  news 
caused  a  panic  among  the  Boston  merchants. 

P.  165 :  It  was  hardly  fair  that  they  should  regulate  colonial  trade 
in  such  a  way  as  to  increase  their  profits,  and  at  the  same  time  try 
to  shift  the  burden  of  taxation  from  their  shoulders  to  those  of  the 
colonists.  But  they  could  not  be  expected  to  see  this,  believing,  as 
they  did,  that  the  main  use  of  colonies  was  to  increase  the  riches  of 
the  mother  country. 

The  king  of  England  was  George  III.,  then  at  the  beginning  of  his 
reign  of  sixty  years.  He  was  shrewd  but  narrow-minded,  and  dis 
liked  the  colonists  because  they  were  inclined  to  manage  their  own 
affairs.  He  heartily  approved  Grenville's  plan.  As  many  members 
of  Parliament  were  chosen  through  his  influence,  they  voted  as 
he  wished.  All  through  the  troubles  with  America  the  "king's 
friends"  were  on  the  wrong  side  of  nearly  every  question. 

P.  166:  In  England  multitudes  of  tax-payers  could  not  vote.  If  a 
town  centuries  before  had  not  been  big  enough  to  send  members  to 
parliament,  it  could  not  now  send  members,  however  big  it  was.  At 
the  same  time  towns  which  once  had  received  the  right  to  send 
members  and  had  grown  small  did  not  lose  the  right.  If  now  the 
same  lord  owned  all  the  property  in  a  town  or  in  three  or  four  of 
them,  he  chose  the  members.  Scores  of  members  were  in  reality 
named  by  great  lords  or  by  the  king.  The  colonists  would  not  have 
endured  a  legislature  like  that.  Their  objection,  however,  was  that 
parliament  did  not  represent  them  in  the  sense  in  which  they  under 
stood  representation. 

P.  168 :  Parliament  hesitated  to  drive  the  colonies  into  open  rebel 
lion  and  ruin  its  own  merchants  besides.  In  March,  1766,  the  famous 
Stamp  Act  was  repealed.  .  .  . 

As  Pitt  had  urged  repeal,  the  colonists,  forgetting  his  enforcement 
of  the  Sugar  Act,  displayed  his  portrait  in  shop  windows.  New 
York  and  South  Carolina  voted  him  a  statue. 

P.  175 :  Many  colonists  thought  that  resistance  to  the  English 
government  had  gone  too  far. 


THIS  IS  THE  ONLY  REFERENCE  TO  PITT;  THE 

OTHER   PROMINENT   ENGLISHMEN   WHO 

LABORED  HARD  IN  THE  INTEREST  OF 

THE  COLONIES  NOT  MENTIONED. 


116  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Burton's  Builders  of  Our  Nation 

[47] 

P.  144:  Thirteen  colonies  lay  along  the  sea-coast,  all  loyal  to  the 
English  crown. 

P.  149:  It  was  soon  whispered  about  that  his  majesty,  George  III., 
was  jealous  of  his  prime  minister's  fame  and  wished  to  dismiss  him 
from  office. 

P.  150:  The  colonists  felt  that  Pitt  was  the  best  friend  they  had 
in  England.  .  .  . 

"Parliament  must  put  a  tax  on  the  Americans",  persisted  the 
king's  ministers. 

"They  have  their  own  parliaments  called  Assemblies",  said  Pitt. 
"Our  Parliament  has  no  right  under  heaven  to  lay  a  tax  without 
their  consent." 

P.  152:  "Repeal  the  Stamp  Act,"  he  said  to  the  stubborn  king's 
ministers.  "I  repeat,  my  lords,  it  is  not  in  accord  with  the  English 
constitution." 

P.  153 :  The  stubborn  king  would  have  his  own  way  in  American 
affairs.  Because  Englishmen  were  too  slow  in  taking  up  arms  against 
their  kinsmen,  his  majesty  hired  some  Hessian  troops  to  help  the 
English  regulars. 

Chatham  again  spoke  out  in  the  House  of  Lords.  "You  cannot 
conquer  America  1"  he  said.  "If  I  were  an  American,  as  I  am  an 
Englishman,  while  a  foreign  troop  was  landed  in  my  country,  I  would 
never  lay  down  my  arms.  Never,  never,  NEVER  1" 


THE  SIGNIFICANCE  OF  THESE  QUOTATIONS  IS 
NOT  NEARLY  AS  GREAT  AS  THE  FACT  THAT  IN 
THIS  AMERICAN  TEXT-BOOK  A  SEPARATE 
CHAPTER  IS  DEVOTED  TO  WILLIAM  PITT,  AND 
THAT  HE  IS  SHOWN  TO  THE  PUPILS  AS  ONE  OF 
THE  BUILDERS  OF  OUR  NATION ! 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  117 

From  Elson's  History  of  the  United  States  of  America 

[56] 

P.  226:  The  colonies  were  not  without  friends  in  the  Commons 
during  the  debate  that  preceded  the  passage  of  the  law,  the  foremost 
of  whom  was  Colonel  Barre,  who  had  fought  by  the  side  of  Wolfe 
at  Louisburg  and  Quebec. 

P.  229:  It  was  Townshend,  above  all  men  except  his  sovereign,  who 
was  responsible  for  the  Revolution. 

P.  232:  He  (George  III.)  showered  favors  on  his  obsequious  fol 
lowers,  while  men  of  independent  character  whom  he  could  not  bend 
to  his  will  became  the  objects  of  his  hatred.  Pitt  he  pronounced  a 
"trumpeter  of  sedition";  Burke  and  Camden  were  the  objects  of  his 
wrath.  .  .  . 

At  the  door  of  George  III.  must  be  laid  the  American  Revolution. 

P.  236:  When  the  addresses  issued  by  this  Congress  (Continental) 
reached  England,  Chatham  paid  the  following  remarkable  tribute  to 
the  men  who  framed  them : — 

"When  your  lordships  look  at  the  papers  transmitted  us  from 
America — when  you  consider  their  decency,  firmness,  and  wisdom, 
you  cannot  but  respect  their  cause.  .  .  .  For  myself  I  must  de 
clare  and  avow,  that  in  all  my  reading  and  observation  .  .  .  that 
for  solidity  of  reasoning,  force  of  sagacity,  and  wisdom  of  conclusion 
.  .  .  no  nation  or  body  of  men  can  stand  in  preference  to  the 
Congress  at  Philadelphia.  ^  I  trust  that  it  is  obvious  to  your  lord 
ships,  that  all  attempts  to  impose  servitude  upon  such  men,  to  estab 
lish  despotism  over  such  a  mighty  continental  nation,  must  be  vain, 
must  be  fatal." 

P.  241 :  The  principle  for  which  the  colonies  contended  was  not 
misunderstood  in  England.  In  reply  to  the  statement  that  the  tax 
on  tea  was  trifling,  Edmund  Burke  (April  19,  1768)  replied :  "Could 
anything  be  a  subject  of  more  just  claim  to  America,  than  to  see  you 
go  out  of  the  plain  high  road  of  finance  .  .  .  merely  for  the  sake 
of  insulting  your  colonies?  No  man  ever  doubted  that  the  com 
modity  of  tea  could  bear  an  imposition  of  threepence.  But  no 
commodity  will  bear  threepence,  or  will  bear  a  penny,  when  the  gen 
eral  feelings  of  men  are  irritated,  and  two  millions  of  people  are 
resolved  not  to  pay." 

P.  279:  It  was  believed  that  he  (Pitt)  and  he  alone  could  yet  con 
ciliate  America.  The  king,  with  his  usual  obstinacy,  hesitated  to  put 
the  government  into  the  hands  of  his  old  enemy.  He  would  prob 
ably  have  been  forced  to  do  so  by  public  opinion  had  not  death  come 
to  his  rescue  by  removing  Chatham. 

"AT  THE  DOOR  OF  GEORGE  III.  MUST  BE  LAID 
THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION." 


118  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Foster's  History  of  the  United  States 

[63] 

P.  136:  Most  of  the  colonists  were  thorough  Englishmen.  They 
were  loyal  to  their  country  and  proud  of  their  origin.  .  .  .  King 
George  had  no  more  devoted  subjects  than  were  those  in  America. 
.^  .  .  But  these  Americans  cherished  the  Englishman's  ideals  of 
right,  justice,  and  liberty.  .  .  . 

The  colonies  belonged  to  England,  but  the  King  and  Parliament 
would  not  concede  to  them  the  same  political  and  commercial  rights 
as  to  England.  .  .  .  This  theory  of  colonial  government,  then  com 
mon  among  the  nations  of  Europe,  gave  England  a  temporary  benefit, 
but  finally  resulted  in  disaster. 

P.  138:  But  when  George  III.  came  to  the  throne,  1760,  he  took  the 
reins  of  government  into  his  own  hands.  ...  It  was  no  easy  task 
to  get  Parliament  to  yield  to  his  will.  But,  by  bribes  in  money  and 
by  the  appointment  of  many  members  of  Parliament  and  their  friends 
to  good  offices,  he  secured  control  of  a  majority  in  Parliament,  who 
worked  with  him  to  further  his  schemes.  George  III.  was  self-willed, 
arbitrary,  and  determined  to  rule  England  and  the  colonies  in  his 
own  way,  without  regard  for  the  wishes  of  the  people.  With  his 
bribed  Parliament,  he  soon  began  to  modify  old  laws,  to  enact  new 
ones,  and  to  enforce  obedience  to  the  laws,  and  thus  drove  the 
colonies  first  into  union,  then  into  rebellion. 

P.  142:  These  difficulties,  combined  with  the  cry  of  distress 
from  the  manufacturers  in  England,  led  Parliament  to  repeal  the 
Stamp  Act,  in  March,  1766.  But,  with  the  repeal  of  the  act  was  a 
declaration  that  Parliament  had  the  right  to  tax  the  colonies  "in 
all  cases  whatsoever". 

P.  144 :  But  this  was  the  very  thing  that  the  colonies  opposed. 
They  cared  little  for  the  tax ;  everything  for  the  principle. 

P.  148,  FOOT  NOTE:  The  great  William  Pitt  said  of  the  document 
(The  Colonial  Declaration  of  Rights)  :  "The  histories  of  Greece  and 
Rome  give  us  nothing  equal  to  it." 

P.  149 :  The  people  neither  in  England  nor  in  America  were  wholly 
united.  Parliament  had  a  large  majority  favoring  radical  measures 
of  King  George,  but  some  of  the  greatest  statesmen,  like  Pitt,  Burke, 
and  Fox,  were  favorable  to  the  colonies.  In  America  the  people  were 
divided.  The  majority  opposed  the  acts  of  England. 


CLEAR  SUGGESTION  OF  POLITICAL  CONDITIONS 

IN  ENGLAND  PRIOR  TO  THE 

REVOLUTION. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  119 

From  Gordy's  A  History  of  the  United  States 
[66] 

P.  126:  In  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  European 
countries  planted  colonies  as  a  means  of  increasing  their  own  trade. 
In  accordance  with  this  theory,  England  valued  her  American  col 
onies  according  to  the  wealth  she  gained  from  them. 

P.  129:  The  colonies  had  submitted  to  such  indirect  taxation  of 
their  trade  and  industries  because  (i)  it  was  usual,  the  world  over, 
for  colonies  to  have  their  trade  thus  taxed  by  their  mother  country ; 

(2)  the  English  navy  protected  the  commerce  of  the  colonies;  and 

(3)  the  Trade  Laws  were  not  strictly  enforced. 

P.  133:  The  debate  in  Parliament  over  the  repeal  showed  that 
many  English  Statesmen  stoutly  defended  the  colonies  in  their  oppo 
sition  to  the  direct  taxation  without  representation.  Said  William 
Pitt  in  a  stirring  speech  in  the  House  of  Commons:  "Sir,  I  rejoice 
that  America  has  resisted !  Three  millions  of  people  so  dead  to  all 
the  feelings  of  liberty  as  voluntarily  to  submit  to  be  slaves  would 
have  been  fit  instruments  to  make  slaves  of  all  the  rest." 

P.  134:  We  cannot  understand  the  real  meaning  of  the  Revolu 
tion  in  America  without  looking  into  a  similar  struggle  that  was  at 
the  same  time  going  on  in  England.  Some  Americans  did  not  op 
pose  England  and  some  Englishmen  did  not  join  hands  against 
America.  It  was  in  each  country  the  same  kind  of  struggle — a 
struggle  between  hostile  principles.  There  was  taxation  without 
representation  in  England  as  well  as  in  America,  and  many  English 
men,  like  William  Pitt,  were  as  much  opposed  to  it  there  as  men 
like  Samuel  Adams  and  Patrick  Henry  were  opposed  to  it  in 
America.  William  Pitt  and  his  followers  represented  the  true  feel 
ing  of  the  English  people  toward  America. 

At  this  time  Parliament  did  not  fairly  represent  the  people  of 
England.  Great  towns  like  Manchester,  Liverpool,  Birmingham,  and 
Leeds  were  not  represented  at  all,  and  members  were  returned  for 
boroughs  that  had  no  existence  except  in  name.  Such  boroughs  were 
called  rotten  boroughs,  or  pocket  boroughs,  which  were  owned  by  the 
great  families.  Long  after  Old  Sarum,  a  noted  rotten  borough,  had 
no  population,  a  member,  representing  its  owner,  was  returned  to 
the  House  of  Commons.  In  a  population  of  8,000,000  only  about 
160,000,  or  one  tenth  of  the  men  of  voting  age  in  England,  could  vote. 
A  few  great  families  controlled  the  House  of  Commons.  Cer 
tainly  the  mass  of  Englishmen  could  justly  complain  of  taxation 
without  representation.  Among  them  was  the  great  William  Pitt, 
who  urged  upon  the  people  the  justice  of  parliamentary  reform, 
with  a  fair  and  full  representation  of  the  English  people  in  the 
House  of  Commons. 

P.  135 :  His  (George  III.)  controlling  purpose  was  to  establish 
personal  government  in  England.  His  desire  for  arbitrary  power, 
together  with  his  narrowness  and  bigotry,  had  much  influence  in 


120  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

bringing  on  the  Revolution.  He  cared  little  for  the  rights  of  the 
'people.  The  more  power  they  had  the  less  he  would  enjoy.  By 
the  corrupt  use  of  money  he  succeeded  in  controlling  the  elections. 
His  desire  was  to  make  Parliament  represent  him  and  a  few  great 
families  that  were  in  the  political  ring  with  him.  He  maintained  his 
influence  largely  through  boss-like  methods,  keeping  his  followers 
under  control  by  the  use  of  an  immense  corruption  fund.  As  long 
as  a  large  number  of  small  boroughs  remained  under  the  control 
of  his  friends,  the  king  could  maintain  his  tyrannical  hold  upon  the 
government. 

But  if  the  Americans  should  succeed  in  their  struggle  for  "No 
taxation  without  representation,"  there  was  little  doubt  that  in 
time  Englishmen  would  succeed  in  a  similar  struggle  for  parlia 
mentary  reform,  or  "No  taxation  without  representation"  in  England. 

P.  139:  Again  English  merchants  begged  for  a  repeal.  But  the 
stupid  king  could  not  understand  the  Americans.  Thus  far  he  had 
failed.  He  now  resorted  to  a  trick  by  which  he  hoped  to  induce  the 
colonists  to  pay  a  small  tax  levied  by  Parliament. 


PICTURE  OF  POLITICAL  CONDITIONS  IN  ENG 
LAND  PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION,  BUT 
ONLY  PITT  MENTIONED  AMONG  THE 
MANY  PROMINENT  ENGLISHMEN 
,WHO  ESPOUSED  THE  CAUSE 
OF  THE  COLONISTS. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  121 

From  Hall,  Smither  and  Ousley's  Student's  History  of  our 

Country 

[68] 

P.  119:  The  colonists  were  loyal  to  the  mother  country,  although 
they  looked  to  her  chiefly  as  a  means  of  protection  from  foreign 
foes ;  and  England,  however  much  she  desired  to  control  the  colonies, 
was  forced,  first  by  civil  strife  and  then  by  frequent  foreign  wars, 
to  leave  them  largely  to  their  own  devices. 

P.  120:  George  III.  was  a  well-meaning  man,  but  he  had  an 
exaggerated  idea  of  his  own  importance  and  greatness,  and  he  was 
resolved  to  exercise  the  utmost  of  royal  power.  .  .  .  But  in  an 
effort  to  further  exercise  his  power  over  his  American  subjects  he 
lost  for  England,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  her  fairest  possessions 
beyond  the  seas.  .  .  . 

According  to  the  ideas  of  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  cen 
turies,  colonies  existed  only  for  the  benefit  of  the  mother  country. 

P.  123 :  It  will  be  seen  that  the  revenue  thus  raised  was  to  be  de 
voted  to  the  colonies,  but  they  resisted  the  right  of  England  to  tax 
them  and  joined  issue  directly  on  the  principle  that  they  should 
control  their  own  affairs.  The  colonists  always  maintained  that  the 
power  of  laying  taxes  for  revenue  in  the  colonies  belonged  to  each 
colonial  government  and  not  to  the  English  Parliament,  for  they 
were  not  represented  in  that  body,  and  could  not  well  be,  as  it  sat 
thousands  of  miles  away.  The  view  advanced  by  the  British,  that 
they  were  as  fairly  represented  by  the  English  members  as  the  great 
majority  of  English  people  were,  seemed  to  the  colonists  utterly 
absurd;  the  American  idea  was  that  each  member  of  the  colonial 
legislatures  represented  a  body  of  people  living  in  some  definite  area, 
and  the  English  idea  was  that  the  members  of  Parliament  represented 
the  different  classes  of  society  in  the  British  Empire. 

P.  125:  There  was  stern  resistance  in  the  English  Parliament  to 
this  act.  The  great  Pitt  and  a  group  of  liberal  English  statesmen 
contended  for  the  same  rights  which  the  Americans  asserted.  They 
openly  espoused  the  cause  of  the  colonists  and  urged  the  repeal  of 
the  law.  ...  In  America  the  repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act  wa£  re 
ceived  with  the  wildest  joy.  There  were  celebrations  in  every  town 
and  there  were  widespread  expressions  of  loyalty  to  King  George  III. 


GULF  BETWEEN  THE  KING  AND  THE  MASS  OF 
THE  ENGLISH  PEOPLE  NOT  SHOWN. 


122  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Higginson's  Young  Folks'  History  of  the  United 

States 


See  Quotations  under  "Books  in  use  more  than  twenty  years  ago", 
No.  20,  Page  48. 


DISTINCTION    BETWEEN   ATTITUDE   OF   THE 

KING  AND  THAT  OF  PROMINENT 

ENGLISHMEN  INDICATED. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS 

From  Lemmon's  (Cooper,  Estill,  and  Lemmon's)  The 
History  of  Our  Country 

[73] 

P.  156:  The  Parliament  which  proposed  to  tax  the  American 
colonists  did  not  truly  represent  the  people  of  England.  In  the 
United  States  today,  we  know  that  members  of  Congress  are  elected 
from  districts  of  nearly  equal  population ;  and  as  population  increases 
much  more  rapidly  in  some  parts  of  the  country  than  in  others,  we 
rearrange  our  representative  districts  every  ten  years  in  order  to 
prevent  unfairness  in  representation.  In  England,  however,  members 
of  Parliament  had  been  originally  elected  from  "shires"  or  "bor 
oughs",  as  such,  and  without  reference  to  population.  At  the  time 
of  George  III.  these  parliamentary  districts,  never  regular,  had  not 
been  changed  for  200  years.  As  a  consequence,  cities  like  Manchester 
and  Birmingham,  which  had  sprung  up  in  recent  years,  had  no 
representatives,  while  other  districts,  whose  population  had  de 
creased  to  hardly  a  dozen  inhabitants,  were  yet  allowed  to  choose 
members  of  Parliament.  The  votes  in  these  "rotten  boroughs" 
were  controlled  by  the  king  and  a  few  wealthy  families.  The 
people  of  the  unrepresented  cities  had  begun  to  complain  of  their 
unjust  treatment,  and  they  sympathized  with  the  Americans  in  their 
cry  of  "no  taxation  without  representation." 

P.  158:  The  colonies,  moreover,  were  not  without  sympathizers  in 
England.  When  Parliament  met  in  1766,  a  petition  against  the 
Stamp  Act  was  presented  by  the  London  merchants  trading  with 
America.  William  Pitt,  now  old  and  suffering  with  disease,  appeared 
in  the  House  of  Commons  on  crutches,  and  fiercely  opposed  the 
policy  of  the  British  government.  "I  rejoice  that  America  has  re 
sisted,"  said  he.  "If  her  people  had  submitted,  they  would  have 
voluntarily  become  slaves.  My  opinion  is  that  the  Stamp  Act 
should  be  repealed,  absolutely,  totally,  immediately."  The  result  was 
the  repeal  of  the  Stamp  Act  before  it  had  been  in  operation  six 
months.  At  the  same  time  a  resolution  was  passed  declaring  that 
Parliament  had  the  right  to  tax  the  colonies  in  all  cases.  Thus  the 
principle  of  taxation  without  representation  was  still  maintained. 


NO  OTHER  REFERENCE  TO   PROMINENT  ENG 
LISHMEN   WHO   FOUGHT  FOR  THE   COL 
ONIES,  NOR  TO  CONDITIONS  IN  ENG 
LAND  PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION. 


THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Perry  and  Price's  American  History,  Second  Book 

[84] 

P.  i :  "The  people,  I  believe,  are  as  truly  loyal  as  any  subjects  the 
king  has;  but  they  are  a  people  jealous  of  their  liberties,  who,  if 
those  liberties  should  ever  be  violated,  will  vindicate  them  to  the 
last  drop  of  their  blood."  Thus  spoke  a  member  of  the  British 
House  of  Commons  during  a  heated  discussion  concerning  the 
British  colonies  in  North  America. 

.  .  .  Like  the  other  leading  nations  of  Europe,  she  believed  that 
colonies  were  particularly  useful  for  trading  purposes.  One  reason 
why  England  maintained  colonies  was  that  she  might  sell  goods  to 
them  at  great  profit.  So  her  Parliament  made  many  laws  that  bene 
fited  the  English  merchants. 

P.  5 :  We  must  not  think  of  the  colonists  at  that  time  as  rebellious 
people,  anxious  to  be  rid  of  the  mother  country.  Far  from  this,  they 
were  true  patriots  asking  but  for  the  rights  of  Englishmen. 

P.  6:  One  of  the  rights  an  Englishman  holds  most  precious  is  that 
of  being  represented  in  the  law-making  body  that  decides  upon 
the  taxes.  It  is  true  that  the  Americans  had  their  own  Assemblies, 
but  they  were  not  represented  in  Parliament,  the  English  taxing  body. 
And  it  was  Parliament  that  had  levied  the  Stamp  Tax  and  had  made 
other  unsatisfactory  laws  for  the  colonists.  Moreover,  the  colonists 
did  not  admit  that  a  standing  army  was  needed  in  America  in  time 
of  peace. 

P.  7 :  At  last  Parliament  saw  that  a  great  mistake  was  being  made 
in  the  treatment  of  the  colonists.  Within  a  few  months  it  repealed 
the  Stamp  Act.  But  here  the  king  stepped  in  and  made  matters 
worse.  .  .  .  We  do  not  doubt  that  he  meant  to  do  right,  but  he  was 
head-strong  and  conceited.  He  would  not  listen  to  his  best  advisers, 
but  only  to  those  who  gave  the  advice  that  he  wanted  to  hear. 

P.  21 :  The  Second  Continental  Congress  even  sent  one  more  peti 
tion  to  George  III.  asking  for  fair  treatment.  The  king  paid  no 
attention  to  it,  but  closed  American  ports  and  called  the  people 
rebels. 

P.  52:  Our  stanch  friend,  William  Pitt,  came  from  a  sick  bed  to 
make  a  last  great  speech  in  Parliament.  In  it  he  said,  "No  man 
more  highly  esteems  and  honors  the  English  troops  than  I  do.  I 
know  their  virtues  and  their  valor ;  I  know  they  can  achieve  anything 
but  impossibilities ;  and  I  know  that  the  conquest  of  English  America 
is  an  impossibility.  You  cannot,  my  Lords,  you  cannot  conquer 
America.  .  .  .  If  I  were  an  American  as  I  am  an  Englishman, 
while  a  foreign  troop  was  landed  in  my  country,  I  never  would  lay 
down  my  arms — never,  never,  never!" 

NO  FURTHER  REFERENCE  TO  CONDITIONS  OR 
MEN  IN  ENGLAND  PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  125 

From  Tappan's  Elementary  History  of  Our  Country 

[87] 

P.  135:  It  was  different  with  this  stamp  tax.  In  each  colony 
there  was  an  assembly  of  men  elected  by  the  people,  and  only  that 
assembly  had  ever  imposed  taxes.  The  colonists  replied,  'This  is 
not  just.  In  England  only  the  House  of  Commons  can  impose  a 
tax;  so  in  America,  only  the  assembly  of  each  colony  can  tax  that 
colony.  But,  if  the  king  asks  us  to  help  England,  our  assemblies 
will  grant  money  as  we  have  often  done  before.  ..." 

England  was  startled  that  mere  colonies  should  dare  to  be  so  inde 
pendent.  In  these  days  a  nation  is  proud  of  her  colonies  and  glad 
to  have  them  prosper;  but  in  the  earlier  times  the  countries  of 
Europe  felt  differently.  They  looked  upon  a  colony  as  a  convenient 
place  to  send  men  for  whom  there  seemed  no  work  and  no  room  at 
home.  It  was  also  a  place  where  a  man  whom  the  king  wished  to 
favor  could  receive  a  grant  of  land  or  hold  some  office,  and  thus 
make  his  fortune.  In  matters  of  trade,  the  mother  country  never 
thought  of  trying  to  help  the  colonies;  and  when  laws  were  made 
in  England,  they  always  aimed  at  getting  as  much  money  as  possible 
from  the  colonies. 

In  1765  the  Stamp  Act  was  passed,  though  many  clear-headed 
statesmen  in  England  were  against  it.  Edmund  Burke  said  it  was 
unjust.  William  Pitt,  who  was  always  a  friend  to  America,  said, 
"England  has  no  right  to  lay  a  tax  upon  the  colonies." 


NO  FURTHER  REFERENCE  TO  CONDITIONS  OR 

MEN  IN  ENGLAND  PRIOR  TO  THE 

REVOLUTION. 


BOOKS  IN  USE  AT  PRESENT 


GROUP  THREE 

Text-books 

which 

deal  fully  with  the  grievances  of  the  colonists, 
make  no  reference  to  general  political  conditions   in  England 

prior  to  the  American  Revolution, 
but  make,  at  least,  favorable  mention 
of  several  prominent  Englishmen. 


From  Gordy's  Stories  of  Later  American  History 

[65] 

P.  i :  The  English  Parliament,  being  largely  made  up  of  the  King's 
friends,  was  quite  ready  to  carry  out  his  wishes,  and  passed  a  law 
taxing  the  colonists.  This  law  was  called  the  Stamp  Act. 

P.  9 :  But  perhaps  you  will  be  surprised  to  learn  that  even  in  Eng 
land  many  leading  men  opposed  it.  They  thought  that  George  III. 
was  making  a  great  mistake  in  trying  to  tax  the  colonies  without 
their  consent.  William  Pitt,  a  leader  in  the  House  of  Commons, 
made  a  great  speech  in  which  he  said :  "I  rejoice  that  America  has 
resisted".  He  went  on  to  say  that  if  the  Americans  had  meekly  sub 
mitted,  they  would  have  acted  like  slaves. 

Burke  and  Fox,  other  great  statesmen,  also  befriended  us. 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  POLITICAL  CONDITIONS  IN 
ENGLAND  PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION 
WHICH  EXPLAIN  THE  GULF  SEPARAT 
ING  THE  KING  FROM  THE  MASS  OF 
THE  ENGLISH  PEOPLE. 
129 


130  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Hamilton's  Our  Republic,  A  History  of  the  United 

States 


[69] 


P.  155 :  When  the  time  came  to  put  the  Stamp  Act  into  operation, 
all  the  collectors  had  resigned.  A  number  of  English  statesmen  be 
came  convinced  that  the  Stamp  Act  was  an  unwise,  if  not  an  unjust, 
measure.  Edmund  Burke  questioned  the  wisdom  of  the  tax,  while 
the  great  William  Pitt  questioned  the  right  of  Parliament  to  levy  it. 


NO  OTHER  REFERENCE  TO  CONDITIONS  OR 

MEN  IN  ENGLAND  CONNECTED  WITH  THE 

ENGLISH  SIDE  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS 

From  Hart's  Essentials  in  American  History 

[70] 

P.  135 :  Opposed  to  the  king's  policy  was  a  group  of  brilliant  states 
men,  of  whom  the  most  famous  were  William  Pitt  (later  Earl  of 
Chatham),  Charles  James  Fox,  and  Edmund  Burke;  they  counseled 
wise  and  moderate  dealing  with  the  colonies.  Notwithstanding  this 
opposition,  for  a  long  time  the  king  by  shrewd  means,  by  bestow 
ing  titles  here,  appointments  there,  reproofs  to  a  third  man,  and 
banknotes  where  other  things  failed,  was  able  to  keep  up  in  the 
House  of  Commons  a  majority,  usually  called  "the  king's  friends". 

P.  139:  The  proceeds  of  the  tax  (estimated  at  100,000  Pounds  a 
year)  were  to  go  toward  the  expense  of  troops  which  were  to  be  sent 
to  America  for  the  defence  of  the  colonies. 

P.  141 :  The  opposition  to  the  Stamp  Act  caused  much  perplexity 
in  England.  William  Pitt  warmly  defended  the  colonists :  "We  may 
bind  their  trade,  confine  their  manufactures,  and  exercise  every 
power  whatsoever",  said  he,  "except  that  of  taking  their  money  out 
of  their  pockets  without  their  consent." 

P.  146:  In  spite  of  Edmund  Burke's  protests  against  a  policy 
"which  punishes  the  innocent  with  the  guilty,  and  condemns  without 
the  possibility  of  defence",  a  series  of  coercive  statutes,  sometimes 
called  "the  Intolerable  Acts",  were  hastily  passed  by  Parliament. 

P.  154:  Up  to  1766  the  theory  of  the  Americans  was  that  they  were 
fighting  simply  to  compel  the  British  to  return  to  the  legal  principles 
of  colonial  government;  they  still  hoped  for  an  honorable  settle 
ment  of  the  trouble.  As  the  war  went  on,  they  lost  their  habitual 
loyalty  to  the  sovereign  and  began  to  accuse  George  III.  of  all  kinds 
of  gross  tyranny,  and  to  think  of  independence. 


NO  PICTURE  OF  CONDITIONS  IN  ENGLAND 
PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION. 


THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Mace's  Primary  History,  Stories  of  Heroism 

[74] 

P.  141 :  King  George  III,  however,  thinking  only  of  England's 
debt,  decided  that  England  ought  to  tax  the  colonies  to  pay  for  an 
army  which  he  wished  to  keep  in  America. 

P.  144 :  Many  great  Englishmen,  such  as  William  Pitt  and  Edmund 
Burke,  opposed  the  Stamp  Tax.  Finally,  King  George  and  his  Par 
liament  repealed  the  unpopular  act. 

P.  145 :  More  British  soldiers  were  sent  there  to  force  the  people 
to  obey  these  detested  laws. 

P.  151 :  The  king  now  tried  to  trick  the  Americans  into  paying  the 
tax  by  making  tea  cheaper  in  America  than  in  England. 

P.  172:  Washington  took  Henry's  side,  but  his  friends,  the  Fair 
faxes,  took  the  king's  side  in  favor  of  the  Stamp  Act. 

P.  177 :  Nine  miles  away,  in  Trenton,  lay  the  Hessians,  those  sol 
diers  from  Hesse-Cassel,  in  Europe,  whom  George  III.  had  hired  to 
fight  his  American  subjects,  because  Englishmen  refused  to  fight 
Americans. 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  CONDITIONS  IN  ENGLAND 

PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION,  AND  ONLY 

THIS  CASUAL  REFERENCE  TO  THE 

PROMINENT  ENGLISHMEN  WHO 

ESPOUSED  THE  CAUSE  OF 

THE  COLONISTS. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  133 

From  Mace's  Beginner's  History 
[75] 

P.  154:  He  (Franklin)  wrote  many  letters  to  great  men,  and  long 
articles  to  the  English  newspapers,  explaining  how  the  Stamp  Act 
injured  America.  .  ;  . 

He  often  talked  with  William  Pitt,  the  great  friend  of  America 
who  introduced  into  Parliament  a  plan  for  making  friends  between 
the  two  countries.  But  the  plan  was  defeated. 

P.  162:  Many  great  Englishmen,  such  as  William  Pitt  and  Ed 
mund  JtJurke,  opposed  the  Stamp  Tax. 


THE  REVOLUTIONARY  PERIOD  IS  TREATED  IN 

.    THIS  TEXT-BOOK  IN  THE  CHAPTERS  ON 

WASHINGTON,  FRANKLIN,  SAMUEL 

ADAMS,  PATRICK  HENRY.    ABOVE 

ARE  THE  ONLY  REFERENCES  TO 

PROMINENT  ENGLISHMEN. 


134  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Mace's  School  History  of  the  United  States 

[76] 

P.  144:  The  great  Edmund  Burke  favored  repeal  because  it  was 
not  wise  to  tax  America,  while  William  Pitt  and  Lord  Camden 
argued  for  repeal  because  England  had  no  right  to  tax  America. 
Pitt  became  a  greater  favorite  with  the  colonists  than  ever.  He 
praised  them  and  said:  "I  rejoice  that  America  has  resisted.  Three 
millions  of  people  so  dead  to  all  the  feelings  of  liberty  as  voluntarily 
to  submit  to  be  slaves,  would  have  been  fit  instruments  to  make 
slaves  of  ourselves". 

P.  154:  William  Pitt  (Lord  Chatham)  introduced  a  motion  for  the 
removal  of  the  British  troops  from  Boston.  He  declared:  "When 
your  lordships  look  at  the  papers ;  when  you  consider  their  decency, 
firmness,  and  wisdom,  you  cannot  but  respect  their  cause  and  wish 
to  make  it  your  own.  For  myself,  I  must  declare — that  for  solidity 
of  reasoning,  force  of  sagacity,  and  wisdom  of  conclusion — no  nation 
or  body  of  men  can  stand  in  preference  to  the  general  Congress  at 
Philadelphia". 

Later,  by  the  aid  of  Franklin,  who  was  then  in  England,  Chatham 
prepared  a  plan  for  restoring  good  feeling  between  England  and  her 
colonies,  but  Parliament  voted  it  down.  Edmund  Burke  also  made 
a  powerful  plea  for  conciliation,  but  all  in  vain. 

P«  177:  Lord  Chatham  and  Edmund  Burke  had  already  violently 
denounced  the  use  of  Indians  by  the  English. 


AT  LEAST  SOME  NOTICE  TAKEN  OF  THE  HELP 
OF  LEADING  ENGLISHMEN. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  135 

From  MacMaster's  Brief  History  of  the  United  States 

[78] 

P.  147:  We  are  often  told  that  taxation  without  representation 
was  the  cause  of  the  Revolution.  It  was  indeed  one  cause,  and  a 
very  important  one,  but  not  the  only  one  by  any  means.  The  causes 
of  the  Revolution,  as  stated  in  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  were 
many,  and  arose  chiefly  from  an  attempt  of  the  mother  country  to 
(i)  enforce  the  laws  concerning  trade,  (2)  quarter  royal  troops  in 
the  colonies,  and  (3)  support  the  troops  by  taxes  imposed  without 
the  consent  of  the  colonies. 

P.  149,  FOOT  NOTE:  While  the  Stamp  Act  was  under  debate  in 
Parliament,  Colonel  Barre,  who  fought  under  Wolfe  at  Louisburg, 
opposed  it.  A  member  had  spoken  of  the  colonists  as  "children 
planted  by  our  care,  nourished  by  our  indulgence,  and  protected  by 
our  arms".  'They  planted  by  your  care!"  said  Barre.  "No,  your 
oppression  planted  them  in  America.  Nourished  by  your  indulgence ! 
They  grew  up  by  your  neglect  of  them.  They  protected  by  your 
arms!  These  Sons  of  Liberty  have  nobly  taken  up  arms  in  your 
defence." 

P.  150:  In  the  opinion  of  the  British  people  the  colonists  were 
represented  in  Parliament.  British  subjects  in  America,  it  was  held, 
were  just  as  much  represented  in  the  House  of  Commons  as  were 
the  people  of  Manchester  or  Birmingham,  neither  of  which  sent  a 
member  to  the  House. 

P-.I53,  NOTE  2:  Pitt  in  a  great  speech  declared,  "the  kingdom  has 
no  right  to  lay  a  tax  on  the  colonies,  because  they  are  unrepresented 
in  Parliament.  I  rejoice  that  America  has  resisted."  Edmund 
Burke,  one  of  the  greatest  of  Irish  orators,  took  the  same  view. 


NO  ADDITIONAL  INFORMATION  AS  TO  ENGLISH 

CONDITIONS  OR  MEN  CONNECTED  WITH  THE 

PERIOD  PRECEDING  THE  REVOLUTION. 


136  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Montgomery's  Leading  Facts  of  American  History 

[82] 

P.  134:  During  that  war,  and  for  a  long  time  before  it,  the  laws 
which  forbade  the  colonists  to  trade  with  any  country  except  Great 
Britain  had  not  been  enforced.  The  New  Englanders  had  made  a 
great  deal  of  money  by  trading  with  the  French  and  the  Spanish 
West  Indies — sending  them  lumber  and  fish,  and  bringing  back 
molasses  and  sugar  from  the  French  islanders,  and  kegs  of  silver 
dollars  from  the  Spaniards. 

The  new  king,  George  III.  (1760),  resolved  to  enforce  the  English 
laws  and  so  break  up  this  profitable  commerce.  He  was  conscientious 
but  narrow-minded,  obstinate,  and  at  times  crazy.  He  stationed 
ships  of  war  along  the  American  coast  to  stop  trade  with  the  French 
and  Spaniards  with  whom  England  was  at  war.  Moreover,  in 
Boston  and  other  large  towns,  the  King's  officers,  armed  with  gen 
eral  warrants  called  '"Writs  of  Assistance",  began  to  break  into 
men's  houses  and  shops  and  search  them  for  smuggled  goods. 

P.  135,  FOOT  NOTE:  The  King  had  his  first  attack  of  insanity — a 
mild  one — in  1765,  while  the  Stamp  Act  was  under  discussion.  In 
1788  he  felt  that  his  mind  was  seriously  affected ;  bursting  into  tears, 
he  exclaimed  that  "he  wished  to  God  he  might  die,  for  he  was  going 
mad".  He  soon  became  so. 

P.  136:  The  best  men  in  Parliament — such  men  as  William  Pitt 
and  Edmund  Burke — took  the  side  of  the  colonists.  Burke  said 
that  if  the  king  undertook  to  tax  the  Americans  against  their  will, 
he  would  find  it  as  hard  a  job  as  the  farmer  did  who  tried  to  shear 
a  wolf  instead  of  a  sheep. 

FOOT  NOTE:  Pitt  thought  it  was  not  right  to  tax  America;  Burke 
thought  it  was  not  wise  to  do  so. 

P.  138 :  When  news  of  these  vigorous  proceedings  reached  London, 
William  Pitt  said  in  Parliament:  "In  my  opinion,  this  kingdom  has 
no  right  to  lay  a  tax  on  the  colonies  ...  I  rejoice  that  America 
has  resisted."  The  Stamp  Act  was  speedily  repealed  (1766).  Par 
liament  however,  put  a  sting  into  its  repeal,  for  it  passed  a  Declara 
tory  Act,  maintaining  that  the  British  government  had  the  right  to 
bind  the  colonies  "in  all  cases  whatsoever". 

P.  139:  This  duty  was  retained  to  show  that  England  meant  to 
tax  the  colonies  without  their  consent. 

P.  141 :  They  humbly  petitioned  the  king  to  redress  their  wrongs. 
They  might  as  well  have  petitioned  the  "Great  Stone  Face"  in  the 
White  Mountains  of  New  Hampshire.  .  .  . 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  137 

But  the  Carolina  paper  forgot  the  Tories,  who  constituted  a  third 
of  the  population.  They  positively  refused  to  take  up  arms  against 
the  king.  Like  the  patriots  they  were  brave  men;  they  loved  their 
country;  but  they  believed  that  the  quarrel  could  be  settled  without 
drawing  a  sword  or  firing  a  gun.  In  the  end  the  Tories  were  driven 
out  of  the  United  States,  and  the  patriots  seized  their  houses  and 
lands. 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  CONDITIONS  IN  PARLIA 
MENT  PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION. 


138  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Morris'  History  of  the  United  States  of  America 

[83] 

P.  172:  He  (George  III.)  was  a  man  not  well  fitted  to  deal  with 
a  people  as  sensitive  on  the  subject  of  political  liberty  as  the  Amer 
icans.  Obstinate  in  disposition  and  dull  in  mind,  with  an  exagger 
ated  view  of  the  royal  prerogative,  he  was  seconded  by  ministers 
and  a  Parliament  who  could  not  be  made  to  understand  the  feeling 
of  the  colonists,  and  who  persisted  in  a  policy  that  in  a  few  years 
drove  them  into  rebellion. 

P.  174:  It  was  declared  by  William  Pitt,  a  friend  of  the  Americans, 
that  not  even  a  horseshoe  nail  could  be  legally  made  without  per 
mission  from  Parliament. 

P.  180:  The  great  orators,  William  Pitt  and  Edmund  Burke,  op 
posed  the  law  in  Parliament. 

FOOT  NOTE  :  Pitt  declared  that  Parliament  had  no  right  to  tax  the 
Americans,  and  said,  "I  rejoice  that  America  has  resisted".  Burke 
said  that  if  the  king  tried  to  tax  the  Americans  against  their  will,  he 
would  find  it  as  hard  a  job  as  the  farmer  did  who  tried  to  shear  a 
wolf  instead  of  a  sheep. 

P.  191 :  Pitt  proposed  measures  of  conciliation.  They  were  re 
jected,  and  .  .  . 

P.  220,  FOOT  NOTE:  Pitt  denounced  in  Parliament  the  employment 
of  Hessians  and  savages.  "If  I  were  an  American,  as  I  am  an 
Englishman",  he  exclaimed,  "while  a  foreign  troop  was  landed  in 
my  country,  I  never  would  lay  down  my  arms, — never,  never,  never !" 


THESE  ARE  THE  ONLY  REFERENCES  TO  THE 

SERVICES  RENDERED  THE  COLONISTS 

BY  PROMINENT  ENGLISHMEN. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  139 

From  Sheldon's  American  History,  (Mary  Sheldon 
Barnes'  Studies  in  American  History.) 

[85] 

See  extracts  under  "Books  in  use  more  than  twenty  years  ago", 
No.  34,  Page  63. 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  POLITICAL  CONDITIONS  IN 
ENGLAND  PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION. 


140  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Swan's  History  and  Civics,  Fifth  year — Second  half 

[86] 

P.  90:  But  England's  interest  in  her  colonies  was  more  selfish 
than  this.  She  valued  the  Americans  chiefly  for  their  usefulness  in 
building  up  British  trade  and  making  English  merchants  rich. 

P.  116:  Many  of  the  members  of  the  English  Parliament  had  not 
favored  the  Act,  among  them,  William  Pitt  and  Edmund  Burke. 
.  .  .  So  in  March,  1766,  Parliament  repealed  the  Stamp  Act 

P.  120 :  The  king,  who  could  easily  get  Lord  North  to  do  anything, 
now  had  his  own  way  about  the  treatment  of  the  colonies. 


NO    REFERENCE    TO    THE    POLITICAL    CONDI 
TIONS  IN  ENGLAND  PRIOR  TO  THE 
REVOLUTION. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  141 

From  Thomas'  An  Elementary  History  of  the  United  States 

[88] 

P.  187 :  They  (the  colonists)  laid  heavy  taxes  upon  themselves,  to 
pay  the  expenses  of  their  own  troops,  and  did  it  willingly ;  but  when 
England  began  to  tax  them  they  objected. 

They  claimed  that,  as  they  were  not  represented  in  the  English 
Parliament,  that  body  had  no  right  to  tax  them.  Many  of  the  people 
of  England  could  have  made  a  similar  claim,  for  Parliament  was 
elected  by  a  small  number  of  voters,  and  many  large  towns  were 
unrepresented.  But  the  Americans  felt  that,  if  their  money  was  to  be 
spent,  they  should  have  some  voice  in  deciding  what  should  be  done 
with  it. 

There  were  many  Englishmen  who  thought  that  the  Americans 
were  right.  The  English  government,  however,  thought  differently, 
and  in  1765  Parliament  passed  the  Stamp  Act,  a  law  which  re 
quired  all  law  papers,  all  agreements,  all  marriage  certificates,  and 
many  other  papers,  in  order  to  be  of  any  use,  to  be  written  on  paper 
which  had  a  certain  value  stamped  upon  it.  These  sheets  of  stamped 
paper  varied  in  value  from  one  cent  to  sixty  dollars,  or  even  more. 

P.  194:  The  course  followed  by  the  king  and  the  majority  in 
Parliament  was  opposed  by  some  of  the  ablest  English  legislators, 
such  as  Edmund  Burke  and  William  Pitt,  and  also  many  English 
citizens,  but  without  avail. 


NO   FURTHER  REFERENCE   TO   THE   SERVICES 

RENDERED  THE  COLONISTS  BY 

PROMINENT  ENGLISHMEN. 


THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Thwaites  and  Kendall's  History  of  the  United  States 

[90] 

P.  137 :  King  George  was  an  obstinate  and  narrow-minded  person. 
He  had  formed  a  hatred  for  his  American  subjects  because  of  their 
"disobedience  and  lawlessness."  He  was  eager  to  teach  them  a 
lesson,  and  announced  that  any  opposition  to  the  new  taxes  would 
promptly  be  crushed. 

William  Pitt,  Lord  Chatham,  and  his  friend,  Edmund  Burke, 
one  of  the  greatest  British  orators,  warned  his  Majesty,  from  their 
seats  in  Parliament,  that  harshness  was  neither  a  proper  nor  a  safe 
method  of  managing  dissatisfied  Englishmen,  whether  at  home  or 
in  the  distant  colonies ;  but  words  of  wisdom  like  these  were  thrown 
away  on  a  man  like  King  George. 

FOOT  NOTE  :  Pitt's  eldest  son  was  in  the  army ;  but  his  father  with 
drew  him,  fearing  that  he  might  be  called  on  to  serve  against  the 
colonies. 

P.  141 :  A  great  debate  arose  in  Parliament  over  the  rights  of  the 
Americans,  during  which  Pitt  exultingly  cried:  "I  rejoice  that 
America  has  resisted !  Three  millions  of  people  so  dead  to  all  the 
feelings  of  liberty  as  voluntarily  to  submit  to  be  made  slaves  would 
have  been  fit  instruments  to  make  slaves  of  all  the  rest.  .  .  ." 

In  order  to  please  the  merchants  the  Government  now  repealed  the 
Stamp  Act. 

P.  148:  Pitt  told  Parliament,  "For  solidity  of  reason,  force  of 
sagacity,  and  wisdom  of  conclusions  under  a  complication  of  diffi 
cult  circumstances,  no  nation  or  body  of  men  can  stand  in  prefer 
ence  to  the  general  Congress  at  Philadelphia." 

Plans  for  conciliation  were  urged  in  Parliament  by  him  and  by 
Burke.  But  all  their  efforts  proved  vain,  for  the  insolent  majority 
seemed  eager  to  please  the  hot-headed  king. 

P.  158:  But  up  to  the  close  of  1775  most  people  disliked  the 
thought  of  independence. 

FOOT  NOTES  :  Not  all  of  the  Americans  sided  with  the  Revolution 
ary  Party.  In  every  colony  many  remained  loyal  to  the  King. 

Washington  once  wrote:  "When  I  first  took  command  of  the 
Continental  army,  I  abhorred  the  idea  of  independence." 


NO  OTHER  REFERENCE  TO  POLITICAL  CONDI 
TIONS  IN  ENGLAND  PRIOR  TO  THE 
REVOLUTION. 


BOOKS  IN  USE  AT  PRESENT 


GROUP  FOUR 

Text-books 

which 

deal  fully  with  the  grievances  of  the  colonists, 

make  no  reference  to  general  political  conditions  in  England 

prior  to  the  American  Revolution, 

but  mention,  at  least,  PITT. 


From  Connor's  The  Story  of  the  United  States 

[51] 

P.  189:  England  wanted  to  use  the  colonies  simply  as  a  means  of 
enriching  herself. 

P.  190:  The  laws  against  manufactures  and  trade  did  not  keep  the 
Americans  from  looking  up  to  the  mother  country.  .  .  .  They  were 
proud  of  their  connection  with  England. 

P.  195:  The  colonies  were  not  left  to  fight  their  battles  alone. 
Many  of  the  leading  men  in  England  declared  that  Parliament  had 
no  right  to  tax  the  Americans.  "I  rejoice",  declared  William  Pitt, 
"that  America  has  resisted."  The  British  merchants  whose  trade 
with  America  was  suffering,  joined  in  the  cry  against  the  Stamp 
Act.  The  King  had  to  give  way,  and  Parliament  repealed  the 
unpopular  law. 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  POLITICAL  CONDITIONS  IN 

ENGLAND  PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION, 

NOR  ANY  FURTHER  MENTION  OF 

PROMINENT  ENGLISHMEN  WHO 

ESPOUSED  THE  CAUSE  OF 

THE  COLONIES. 

145 


146  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Elson  and  MacMullan's  The  Story  of  Our  Country 

[57] 

P.  148 :  But  the  colonists  had  a  friend  in  the  wise  statesman  Wil 
liam  Pitt.  "The  Americans  ought  not  to  be  taxed  without  their 
consent,"  said  he.  "Do  we  allow  them  to  be  represented  in  Parlia 
ment?  No.  Then  they  should  not  be  taxed  unless  they  are  repre 
sented." 

P.  149:  "I  rejoice  that  America  has  resisted",  said  William  Pitt, 
"three  millions  of  people  so  dead  to  all  the  feelings  of  liberty  as 
voluntarily  to  submit  to  be  slaves  would  have  been  fit  instruments  to 
make  slaves  of  all  the  rest." 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  THE  POLITICAL  CONDI 
TIONS  IN  ENGLAND  PRIOR  TO  THE  REV 
OLUTION,  NOR  TO  OTHER  PROMINENT 
ENGLISHMEN  WHO  SERVED  THE 
CAUSE  OF  THE  COLONISTS. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  147 

From  Gordy's  Elementary  History  of  the   United  States 

[64] 

P.  137:  Many  Englishmen  believed  that  the  king  had  made  a 
mistake,  and  that  the  Americans  were  right  in  refusing  to  be  taxed 
without  being  represented  in  the  body  that  taxed  them.  One  of 
these,  William  Pitt,  took  up  the  cause  of  the  colonists  in  Parliament. 
In  an  eloquent  speech  he  said,  "Sir,  I  rejoice  that  America  has 
resisted.  The  Americans  have  been  wronged!  They  have  been 
driven  to  madness  by  injustice!" 

P.  152:  But  if  there  were  many  in  the  colonies  who  went  over  to 
the  side  of  England,  so  in  England  not  a  few  took  up  the  cause  of 
the  colonies.  King  George  found  that  many  Englishmen  were 
unwilling  to  fight  against  the  Americans,  some  of  whom  were  their 
kinsmen.  As  it  was  hard  to  get  English  soldiers,  the  King  hired 
German  troops,  thirty  thousand  in  all,  from  Hesse-Cassel,  his  Ger 
man  possession.  These  soldiers  were  called  Hessians. 


THE   ONLY  REFERENCE  TO  ANYTHING  DONE 

ON  BEHALF  OF  THE  COLONIES  BY 

PROMINENT  ENGLISHMEN. 


148  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Hodgdon's  A  First  Course  in  American  History,  II 


P.  2:  In  the  year  1765  a  bill  called  the  Stamp  Act  was  passed  by 
the  English  Parliament.  Parliament  makes  England's  laws  just  as 
Congress  at  Washington  makes  our  own. 

P.  8  :  George  III.  was  slow  to  learn  that  the  people  have  rights  as 
well  as  the  king.  He  would  have  done  well  to  give  heed  to  the  dis 
content  of  the  colonists  and  to  the  counsel  of  wise  English  states 
men.  Many  members  of  Parliament,  among  them  William  Pitt,  sym 
pathized  with  the  Americans,  and  were  glad  when  they  refused  to 
pay  the  stamp  tax.  "I  rejoice",  said  Pitt  in  a  great  speech  in  the 
House  of  Commons,  "that  America  has  resisted". 

P.  79:  William  Pitt,  always  America's  true  friend,  rose  in  Parlia 
ment  and  said  :  "My  Lords,  you  cannot  conquer  America.  And  if  I 
were  an  American,  while  a  foreign  troop  was  landed  in  my  country, 
I  would  never  lay  down  my  arms  —  never  —  never  —  never  1" 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  CONDITIONS  IN  ENGLAND 

PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION,  NOR  TO  ANY 

OF  THE  PROMINENT  ENGLISHMEN, 

ASIDE  FROM  PITT,  WHO  LABORED 

IN  THE  INTEREST  OF  THE 

COLONIES. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  149 

From  Thompson's  History  of  the  United  States 

[89] 

P.  145 :  The  colonial  policy  of  Great  Britain  was  in  accordance 
with  the  view,  accepted  by  all  nations  in  the  seventeenth  and  eight 
eenth  centuries,  that  the  trade  and  manufactures  of  colonies  should 
be  controlled  in  the  interest  of  the  mother  country.  Few  statesmen 
of  Europe  could  then  be  found  who  would  deny  that  the  system 
was  proper.  The  policy  of  Great  Britain  was  more  liberal  than  that 
of  other  nations,  for  while  laws  were  passed  to  secure  a  monopoly 
of  the  colonial  trade,  other  laws  were  passed  to  build  up  that  trade. 

P.  146 :  They  were  proud  of  being  Englishmen,  and  although  they 
resented  the  unjust  course  pursued  towards  them,  they  willingly 
acknowledged  their  allegiance  to  the  mother  country. 

P.  153:  Parliament,  realizing  the  temper  of  the  American  people, 
repealed  the  law  in  the  spring  of  1766,  but  at  the  same  time  de 
clared  its  right  to  tax  America.  Those  who  favored  the  repeal  were 
led  by  William  Pitt,  the  great  friend  of  the  colonies,  and  by  Edmund 
Burke. 


NO  FURTHER  REFERENCE  TO  CONDITIONS  IN 

ENGLAND  PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION,  NOR 

TO  THE  SERVICES  RENDERED  THE 

COLONIES  BY  PROMINENT 

ENGLISHMEN. 


BOOKS  IN  USE  AT  PRESENT 


GROUP  FIVE 

Text-books 

which 

deal  fully  with  the  grievances  of  the  colonists, 
make  no  reference  to  general  political  conditions  in  England 

prior  to  the  American  Revolution, 

nor  to  any  prominent  Englishmen  who  devoted  themselves  to 
the  cause  of  the  Americans. 


From  Barnes's  School  History  of  the  United  States 
by  Steele 

[42] 

P.  120 :  Causes  of  the  Revolution.— The  French  and  Indian  War, 
by  driving  the  French  from  America,  rendered  it  less  necessary  for 
Great  Britain  to  heed  the  wishes  of  the  colonists.  Accordingly,  the 
British  officers  now  began  to  enforce  the  odious  Navigation  Act 
(1761).  Moreover,  the  British  Parliament,  urged  on  by  King  George 
III.,  made  a  series  of  attempts  to  tax  the  colonists.  The  colonists 
resisted  these  attempts,  at  first  by  peaceable  means  and  finally  by 
force  of  arms,  declaring  that  "taxation  without  representation  is 
tyranny". 

The  Stamp  Act  (1765)  ordered  that  stamps  should  be  put  on  all 
legal  documents,  newspapers,  pamphlets,  etc.  The  money  paid  for 
the  stamps  was  a  tax  to  support  an  army  for  the  defence  of  the 
colonies.  But  the  colonists,  who  insisted  that  they  could  be  right 
fully  taxed  only  by  their  own  assemblies,  were  thoroughly  aroused 
by  this  law.  The  houses  of  British  officials  were  mobbed.  Prominent 
Loyalists  were  hanged  in  effigy.  Stamped  paper  was  seized.  The 
stamp  agents  were  forced  to  resign.  People  agreed  not  to  use  any 
article  of  British  manufacture.  Associations,  called  the  "Sons  of 
Liberty",  were  formed  to  resist  the  law.  Delegates  from  nine  of 
the  colonies  met  at  New  York  (the  "Stamp  Act  Congress")  and 
framed  a  Declaration  of  Rights,  and  a  petition  to  the  king  and 
Parliament.  The  ist  of  November,  appointed  for  the  Stamp  Act  to 
go  into  effect,  was  observed  as  a  day  of  mourning.  Bells  were 
tolled,  flags  were  raised  at  halfmast,  and  business  was  suspended. 
Samuel  and  John  Adams,  Patrick  Henry,  and  James  Otis,  by  their 
stirring  and  patriotic  speeches,  aroused  the  people  over  the  whole 
land. 

Alarmed  by  these  demonstrations,  the  British  Parliament  repealed 
the  Stamp  Act  (1766),  but  still  declared  its  right  to  tax  the  colonies. 

The  Townshend  Acts,  soon  after  passed  by  Parliament,  laid  a  tax 
upon  tea,  glass,  paper,  etc.,  and  established  a  Board  of  Trade  at 
Boston  to  act  independently  of  the  colonial  assemblies.  The  money 
raised  by  the  new  tax  was  to  pay  the  salaries  of  the  colonial  gov 
ernors  and  other  officers  to  be  appointed  by  the  crown. 

Mutiny  A ct—  Troops  were  sent  from  England  to  enforce  the 
laws.  The  Mutiny  Act  ordered  that  the  colonies  should  provide 
these  soldiers  with  food  and  shelter.  To  be  taxed  illegally  was  bad 
enough,  but  to  support  armed  oppressors  was  unendurable.  The 
New  York  assembly,  having  refused  to  comply,  was  forbidden  to 
pass  any  legislative  acts. 

The  colonists,  meanwhile,  made  new  agreements  not  to  buy  any 
British  goods  till  the  duties  were  repealed.  The  Massachusetts  as 
sembly  sent  a  circular  letter  to  the  other  colonies,  urging  a  union  for 
the  redress  of  grievances.  The  King's  secretary  for  colonial  affairs 

153 


154  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

ordered  the  assembly  to  rescind  its  action ;  but  it  almost  unanimously 
refused.  By  this  time,  the  assemblies  of  nearly  all  the  colonies  had 
declared  that  Parliament  had  no  right  to  tax  them  without  their  con 
sent.  (Paragraphs  follow  on  "Boston  Massacre",  "Boston  Tea 
Party",  etc.) 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  THE  ENGLISH  SIDE  OF  THE 

CONTROVERSY,     NOR    TO    THE     EMINENT 

SERVICES  RENDERED  THE  COLONISTS 

BY  PROMINENT  ENGLISHMEN. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  155 

From  Chandler  and  Chitwood's  Makers  of  American 
History 

[48] 

This  book  teaches  History  by  reviewing  the  lives  of  all  the  men 
prominent  in  public  life  in  this  country.  In  doing  so,  it  touches 
upon  all  the  principal  events  which  led  to  the  estrangement  between 
the  two  countries  and  to  the  Revolutionary  War,  but  in  no  word 
refers  to  the  attitude  of  that  part  of  the  population  of  England  which 
understood  and  championed  the  claims  of  the  colonists. 


NO  MENTION  OF  PITT,  BURKE,  BARRE,  OR  OF 

ANY   OTHER   PROMINENT   ENGLISHMEN 

WHO  DEVOTED  THEMSELVES  TO  THE 

CAUSE  OF  THE  COLONISTS. 


156  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Chambers'  (Hansell's)  A  School  History  of  the 
United  States 

[50] 

P.  99 :  Why  the  Colonists  resisted. 

1.  From  time  to  time  some  very  unjust  laws  had  been  made  by 
England    for    the   government   of    the    colonies.      When    laws    are 
unjust  and  people  are  forced  to  obey  them,  we  call  this  use  of  power 
tyranny.     Brave  people  seldom  submit  to  tyranny. 

2.  One  of  the  laws,  made  by  England  as  far  back  as  1660,  forbade 
the  colonists  to  build  or  use  their  own  ships.    Although  many  things 
were  exported  or  sent  to  Europe,  the  law  was  that  only  English 
vessels  were  permitted  to  be  used.     This  law  was  known  as  the 
Navigation  Act. 

3.  In  1764,  Acts  of  Trade  were  passed.    These  compelled  the  colon 
ists  to  send  their  products,  such  as  sugar,  rice,  tobacco,  and  indigo, 
to  England  only.     They  were  forbidden  to  trade  with  any  other 
country.   At  one  time  the  colonists  were  not  permitted  to  manufac 
ture  certain  articles  for  themselves.    The  object  was  to  make  them 
buy  these  articles  abroad,  and  they  were  allowed  to  buy  from  none 
but  English  merchants. 

4.  Laws  were  also  made  in  England  to  tax  the  colonists  for  the 
expenses  of  the  French  and  Indian  War.     One  of  these  laws  was 
known  as  the  Stamp  Act.     It  compelled  the  colonists  to  write  or 
print  on  stamped  paper  every  promissory  note,  bond,  or  other  legal 
document,  and  also  every  newspaper  and  almanac.     The  stamped 
paper  was  sold  only  by  the  English  Government. 

5.  Another  way  by  which  England  tried  to  raise  money  in  America 
was  to  require  the  colonists  to  pay  a  tax  on  the  tea  they  used. 
Taxes  were  also  imposed  upon  paint,  varnish,  glass,  and  other  things. 

6.  These  tax  laws  were  made  in  England.    English  laws  are  made 
by  men  from  different  parts  of  the  kingdom.    These  men  represent 
the  people  of  England  and  form  the  Parliament,  or  legislature. 

7.  The  colonists  did  not  have  representatives  in  Parliament,  and 
it  should  not  have  imposed  taxes  upon  them,  for  taxation  without 
representation  is  not  right.     Among  the  colonists  there  were  many 
brave  men  who  were  willing  to  fight  and  die  for  what  they  thought 
to  be  right;  so  they  determined  to  resist. 

8.  The  stamped  paper  that  was  sent  over  was  either  destroyed  or 
returned  to  England.    When  the  tax  was  placed  on  tea,  the  colon 
ists  stopped  using  it  altogether.     A  number  of  men  disguised  as 
Indians  went  one  night  on  board  a  vessel  loaded  with  tea,  and  threw 
it  all  into  the  water.    This  took  place  in  Boston  harbor,  and  is  known 
as  the  Boston  Tea  Party. 

9.  England  became  angry  at  the  resistance  of  the  colonists,  and 
sent  soldiers  over  to  compel  them  to  obey.     These   soldiers   were 
quartered  in  Boston.     Very  soon  trouble  arose  between  them  and 
the  people. 


NO  INDICATION  OF  THE  ENGLISH  SIDE  OF  THE 

CONTROVERSY  NOR  OF  THE  GREAT  SERVICES 

PROMINENT  ENGLISHMEN  RENDERED  THE 

COLONISTS. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  157 

From  Eggleston's  A  First  Book  in  American  History 

[53] 

See  quotations  under  "Books  in  use  more  than  twenty  years  ago". 
No.  n,  Page  84. 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  POLITICAL  CONDITIONS  IN 

ENGLAND  WHICH  CAUSED   PARLIAMENT 

TO  WORK  HAND  IN  HAND  WITH  THE 

KING,  NOR  TO  THE  SERVICES 

RENDERED  THE  COLONISTS 

BY   PROMINENT 

ENGLISHMEN. 


158  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Eggleston's  History  of  the  United  States  and  Its 

People 

[54] 

See  quotations  under  "Books  in  use  more  than  twenty  years  ago". 
No.  12,  Page  85. 


NO  MENTION  OF  THE  FACT  THAT  MANY  ENG 
LISHMEN  FAVORED  THE  COLONISTS. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  159 

From  Eggleston's  New  Century  History  of  the 
United  States 

(55] 

Summary  of  the  Chapter  "Causes  of  the  Revolution". 

P.  151 :  Summary,  i.  England  and  the  colonies  quarreled  almost 
from  the  beginning.  Great  Britain  forced  African  slaves  upon  the 
colonies,  and  made  hurtful  laws,  especially  the  laws  to  prevent 
manufacturing  in  the  colonies  and  to  interfere  with  their  trade. 
For  many  years  the  colonists  managed  to  evade  these  laws  by  smug 
gling  and  in  other  ways. 

2.  When  George  III.  became  king  he  made  an  effort  to  enforce  the 
trade  laws  strictly.    The  colonists  resisted,  holding  that  a  legislature 
in  England  in  which  they  had  no  voice  had  no  right  to  tax  them. 

3.  Parliament  passed  the  Stamp  Act  (1765).     It  required  the  col 
onists  to  pay  a  stamp  tax  on  all  documents  and  newspapers.     But 
the  colonists  would  not  use  the  stamped  paper,  and  not  a  single  stamp 
was  sold  in  all  America. 

4.  In  1765  a  congress  of  delegates  from  nine  of  the  colonies  met 
to  consider  plans  of  action.     It  adopted  a  declaration  of  rights  and 
grievances,  declared  that  the  colonists  alone  had  a  right  to  make 
laws  and  impose  taxes,  and  claimed  for  every  accused  person  the 
right  of  trial  by  jury — a  right  which  at  that  time  was  often  denied 
to  Americans. 

5.  The  Stamp  Act  was  repealed.    But  other  equally  bad  laws  were 
passed  instead.    On  March  5,  1770,  British  soldiers  in  Boston  fired 
upon  the  people,  killing  some  of  them. 

6.  In    March,    1773,   the   Virginia   legislature   appointed   a   com 
mittee  of  correspondence  to  communicate  with  the  other  colonies 
and  arranged  for  united  action  in  self-defence.    The  other  colonies 
liked  Virginia's  suggestion,  and  acted  upon  it. 

7.  The  laws  taxing  the  colonies  were  repealed,  but  a  small  tax 
on  tea  was  retained.    The  colonists  refused  to  pay  this  tax.     From 
some  ports  all  tea  ships  were  sent  back  to  England  with  their  cargoes. 
In  Boston,  citizens  threw  the  tea  into  the  water.    Tea  sent  to  Charles 
Town,  South  Carolina,  was  put  into  storehouses,  where  it  lay  for 
several  years. 

8.  These  things  angered  the  British,  and  they  made  four  new  laws 
for  the  injury  of  the  colonies.     One  of  these  stopped  all  trade  with 
Boston  by  forbidding  ships  to  enter  or  leave  the  harbor.     All  the 
colonies  treated  this  wrong  to  Boston  as  a  wrong  to  themselves. 

9.  These  things  led  to  the  calling  of  a  Continental  Congress,  Sep 
tember   5,    1774,   at   which    it   was   agreed   that    no    British   goods 
should  be  used  in  this  country. 

THE    CHAPTER    ITSELF    CONTAINS    NO    ADDI 
TIONAL     INFORMATION     AS     TO     PERSONS 
OR     MATTERS      CONNECTED      WITH      THE 
PERIOD  PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION. 


160  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Evans'  First  Lessons  in  Georgia  History 

[58] 

P.  103:  The  colonies  denied  both  the  justice  of  the  new  tax  and 
the  right  of  Parliament  to  levy  it. 

The  tax  was  not  just,  because  the  colonies  bore  their  share  of  the 
expense  by  furnishing  and  equipping  soldiers  of  their  own.  The 
tax  was  not  right,  because  English  citizens  could  not  lawfully  be 
taxed  except  by  the  votes  of  their  representatives.  The  colonists 
had  no  representatives  in  Parliament ;  they  claimed  that  they  should 
be  taxed  only  by  their  colonial  assemblies. 

P.  104:  The  money  raised  by  the  tax  was  to  be  spent  in  support 
of  the  English  army  in  the  colonies. 

P.  108:  In  March,  1766,  the  Stamp  Act  was  repealed,  and  peace 
and  order  once  more  prevailed  in  the  colonies. 

P.  109:  England  was  warned  by  one  of  her  statesmen,  who  said, 
"If  you  persist  in  your  right  to  tax  the  Americans,  you  will  force 
them  into  open  rebellion." 

P.  119:  These  measures  made  the  people  more  and  more  discon 
tented.  Those  who  sided  with  the  colonists  and  were  in  favor  of  lib 
erty  were  called  "Whigs",  while  those  who  favored  the  king  were 
called  "Tories".  "Tory"  soon  became  a  term  of  bitter  reproach. 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  THE  CONDITIONS  IN  ENG 
LAND    PRIOR   TO   THE   REVOLUTION,    NOR 
TO  THE  SERVICES  OF  PROMINENT 
ENGLISHMEN  FAVORING  THE 
COLONISTS. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  161 

From  Evans'  The  Essential  Facts  of  American  History 

[59] 

P.  174:  When  England  planted  colonies  in  America,  or  agreed  to 
people  coming  here  for  that  purpose,  the  king  had  in  mind  only  the 
riches  to  be  gained  for  England.  He  cared  little  for  the  colony;  it 
was  planted  for  the  benefit  of  the  mother  country. 

P.  177 :  We  must  not  get  the  idea  that  the  American  colonists  were 
opposed  to  the  mother  country  in  feeling.  Such  was  not  the  case. 
They  loved  the  Old  England  from  which  their  fathers  came. 

P.  179:  The  British  Parliament,  seeing  the  opposition  of  the 
colonies,  repealed  the  Stamp  Act  in  1766.  Still  Parliament  believed 
that  the  British  government  had  a  right  to  tax  the  colonies. 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  THE   POLITICAL  CONDI 
TIONS   IN    PARLIAMENT   PRIOR   TO   THE 
REVOLUTION,  NOR  TO  PROMINENT 
ENGLISHMEN  WHO  ESPOUSED 
THE  CAUSE  OF  THE 
COLONIES. 


162  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Estill's  Beginner's  History  of  Our  Country 

[60] 

P.  161 :  The  kings  of  England  did  not  seem  to  care  what  sort  of 
men  they  sent  to  America  to  govern  the  colonies. 

P.  162:  The  Americans  did  not  mind  paying  a  tax  which  they 
themselves  had  decided  was  right.  But  no  Americans  were  allowed 
to  be  members  of  the  English  Parliament,  by  which  the  stamp  law 
and  all  other  tax  laws  of  England  were  passed.  To  the  colonists  this 
taxing  them  without  their  consent — without  their  being  represented 
in  Parliament — was  the  last  straw  that  broke  the  camel's  back. 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  THE  CONDITIONS  IN  ENG 
LAND  PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION,  NOR  TO 
THE  SERVICES  RENDERED  THE  COL 
ONISTS  BY  PROMINENT 
ENGLISHMEN. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  163 

From  Forman's  History  of  the  United  States 

[62] 

P.  114:  After  the  French  and  Indian  War,  therefore,  England  and 
her  colonies  ought  to  have  been  closer  together  than  they  had 
ever  been  before ;  as  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  after  that  war  they 
were  further  apart. 

P.  117:  Adams  knew  the  king  only  too  well.  George  III.  was  not 
disposed  to  listen  to  petitions  from  the  colonists ;  he  intended  to  rule 
them  with  a  rod  of  iron  if  he  could.  "We  shall  grant  nothing  to 
America",  said  one  of  the  king's  ministers,  "except  what  they  may 
ask  with  a  halter  about  their  necks." 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  POLITICAL  CONDITIONS  IN 

ENGLAND  PRIOR  TO  THE  REVOLUTION,  NOR 

MENTION  OF  PITT,  BURKE,  OR  OTHERS. 


164  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  MacMaster's  Primary  History  of  the  United  States 

[77] 

P.  119:  SUMMARY,  i.  In  order  to  defend  the  colonies  Great 
Britain  proposed  to  send  over  an  army  and  have  the  colonists  help 
to  pay  the  cost. 

2.  Money  was  to  be  raised  by  new  duties  and  by  a  stamp  tax  on 
newspapers  and  legal  papers. 

3.  As   the  colonists   had   no    representatives   in   Parliament,   they 
refused  to  pay  the   stamp   duties,   and   agreed   not  to   buy   British 
manufactured  goods.     This  forced  Parliament  to  repeal  the  stamp 
tax. 

4.  But  Parliament  soon  laid  new  taxes  on  glass,  paint,  oils,  and  tea. 
Again  the  colonists  refused  to  buy  British  goods,  and  soon  all  the 
taxes  were  repealed  except  that  on  tea. 

5.  As  the  people  would  not  import  tea,  it  was  sent  over.    At  some 
places  the  ships  were  forced  to  sail  away.    At  Boston  men  disguised 
as  Indians  threw  the  tea  into  the  water. 

6.  For  this,  Parliament  punished  Boston.     But  the  colonies  sided 
with  Boston,  and  the  first  Continental  Congress  met  at  Philadelphia 
in  1774. 


THE    CHAPTER    ITSELF    CONTAINS    NO    ADDI 
TIONAL     INFORMATION     AS     TO     PERSONS 
OR     MATTERS      CONNECTED      WITH      THE 
PERIOD  PRECEDING  THE  REVOLUTION. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  165 

From  MacMaster's  School  History  of  the   United  States 

[79] 

See  quotations  under  "Books  in  use  more  than  twenty  years  ago" 
No.  25,  Page  87. 


THESE  ARE  THE  ONLY  REFERENCES  TO  MEN 

AND  CONDITIONS  IN  ENGLAND  HAVING 

HAD  AN  INFLUENCE  ON  THE  CONFLICT. 

NO  MENTION  OF  PITT,  BURKE, 

OR  OTHERS. 


166  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  Montgomery's  An  Elementary  American  History 

[80] 

Page  115 :  Perhaps,  then,  if  we  look  at  both  sides  of  the  picture  we 
shall  think  that,  on  the  whole,  the  people  in  America  were  not  very 
badly  treated — at  least,  not  up  to  this  time. 

Benjamin  Franklin  was  a  true  American,  and  he  was  a  good  judge 
of  such  things.  He  said  that  the  colonists  were  so  contented  then 
that  the  king  of  England  could  lead  them  "by  a  thread." 

P.  117:  After  George  the  Third  became  king  of  England  (1760) 
the  American  colonists  began  to  resist  being  led.  Benjamin  Frank 
lin  said  that  they  changed  entirely  in  their  feeling  toward  the  king. 
They  were  no  longer  contented. 


NO  FURTHER  REFERENCE  TO  POLITICAL  CON 
DITIONS  IN  ENGLAND,  NOR  ANY  MENTION 
OF  PROMINENT  ENGLISHMEN  WHO 
FAVORED  THE  COLONIES. 


IN  OUR  SCHOOL  TEXT-BOOKS  167 

From    Montgomery's    The   Beginner's   American   History 

[Si] 

See  quotations  under  "Books  in  use  more  than  twenty  years  ago". 
No.  26,  Page  88. 


THE  REFERENCE  TO  "THE  GREATEST  MEN  IN 
ENGLAND"  IS  THE  ONLY  MENTION  OF  THE 
POSITION  TAKEN  BY  PROMINENT  ENG 
LISHMEN  IN  FAVOR  OF  THE 
COLONISTS. 


168  THE  AMERICAN  REVOLUTION 

From  White's  Beginner's  History  of  the  United  States 

[93] 

P.  no:  For  a  long  time  the  English  had  been  trying  to  make  money 
out  of  the  people  of  America. 

P.  in  :  In  1765  the  British  Parliament  made  a  law  which  declared 
that  every  deed  for  land,  every  marriage  certificate,  every  will  or 
other  important  writing  must  be  on  stamped  paper.  This  special 
kind  of  paper  was  to  be  sold  by  the  British  government  at  a  very 
high  price,  and  the  money  received  from  this  tax  was  to  be  used  in 
supporting  the  British  army  in  America.  This  law  was  called  the 
"Stamp  Act." 

P.  113:  The  other  colonies  then  spoke  out  against  the  Stamp  Act, 
the  agents  for  selling  stamped  paper  were  forced  to  resign,  and  the 
stamped  paper  was  never  sold  in  the  thirteen  colonies. 


NO  REFERENCE  TO  THE  CONDITIONS  IN  ENG 
LAND    PRIOR   TO   THE   REVOLUTION,    NOR 
TO  THE  PROMINENT  ENGLISHMEN 
WHO  CHAMPIONED  THE  CAUSE 
OF  THE  COLONIES. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 


LOAN  DEPT 


RENW 
This  book  i 
c 
Renewed 


'ft*  .131959  8  7 


HhCEJVEO 


MAR29 


CIRCULATION 


LD21A-60m-6,'69 
(J9096slO)476-A-32 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


LOAN  DEPT. 


YC  03912 


U.  C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


370JOS 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


